WRITTEN DIRECT TESTIMONY OF

JANICE DE FREITAS

(CBC - RIGHTS ADMINISTRATION)

2004—2005 Cable Royalty Distribution Proceeding Docket No. 2007-03 CRB CD 2004-2005

1. Introduction

I am Manager of Rights Administration for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation/Radio- (CBC/Radio-Canada) at the Head Office in . I have worked for the CBC since 1980. For the last 15 years, I have served as Chairman of the Canadian Claimants Group (CCG). Before assuming my current position, I spent nine years in CBC’s program distribution department eventually managing the Educational Sales unit. Those responsibilities called for me to be familiar with the English television network’s programming, and rights administration.

CBC/Radio-Canada is Canada’s national public broadcaster, and one of its largest and most important cultural institutions. It was created by an Act of Parliament in 1936, beginning with Radio. Bilingual television services were launched in 1952. CBC/Radio-Canada is licensed and regulated by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC)1. CBC/Radio-Canada employs approximately 9,930 in 27 regional offices across the country. CBC programming is provided on multiple platforms: television (both traditional over-the-air and cable networks), radio, the Internet, satellite radio, digital audio and a recording label. Through this array of activities, CBC/Radio-Canada delivers content in English, French, and eight aboriginal languages. In addition to this, programming is available in seven other languages including Spanish, Russian and Mandarin on both Radio Canada International, and Web-based www.rciviva.ca, a radio service for recent and aspiring immigrants to Canada.

1 The CRTC is an independent authority in charge of regulating and supervising Canadian broadcasting and telecommunications, equivalent to the FCC.

CBC/Radio-Canada’s conventional broadcast stations are located in Canadian cities across the nation, many in near proximity to the . Due to this, CBC and other Canadian television stations are long-established components of both the over-the-air and markets along the U.S.-Canada border. The CBC has been a participant in these cable royalty proceedings since their very inception and is the founding member of the Canadian Claimants Group. The CBC, through it Rights Administration Department, continues to head the Canadian Claimants Group. One of my primary responsibilities for the last 18 years has been supervision and administration of responsibilities related to the U.S. cable retransmission claims of Canadians. Most recently this has included preparing this direct case.

Today, I am appearing in several capacities:

• As Chairman of the CCG, I am here to provide an overview of our claim, to introduce our other witnesses, and to provide background information on the eclectic group of producers, distributors and broadcasters who are members of the Group.

• As an employee of the CBC/Radio-Canada I will provide some background information and generally describe CBC/Radio- Canada’s conventional television networks and the programming they broadcast because most of the Canadian distant signals retransmitted in the US are CBC/Radio-Canada English or French stations.

• Finally, I will sponsor cable carriage and royalty data that we have obtained from Cable Data Corporation that reflects the increase in carriage and royalties paid by Form 3 cable systems for the distant retransmission of Canadian television stations.

2. Overview of Our Claim

The Phase I claim of the Canadian Claimants Group encompasses the programming shown on all distant Canadian television signals, excluding that claimed by U.S. groups. The members of the CCG all have programming that was carried on Canadian signals retransmitted in the U.S. by Form 3 cable systems during 2004 through 2005. The Canadian signals retransmitted in these

2

years are listed below in Table 1 along with their network affiliations and their language of broadcast:

Table 1 Canadian Signals Carried by Form 3 Systems on a Distant Basis in 2004 through 2005

Signal Affiliation Language

CBAFT CBC French CBAT CBC English CBET CBC English CBFT CBC French CBLT CBC English CBMT CBC English CBOT CBC English CBUT CBC English CBWT CBC English CFCF CTV English CFTO CTV English CHCH GLOBAL English CHLT TVA French CIII CANWEST GLOBAL English CIMT TVA French CISA CANWEST GLOBAL English CJOH CTV English CKRT CBC French CKSH CBC French CKWS CBC English CKY CTV English

It is important to note that Canadian signals may only be retransmitted within the compulsory zone, a specific geographic region of the United States. This is illustrated on page one of Exhibit CDN-1-A. The remaining four pages of Exhibit CDN-1-A are maps that illustrate where these distant Canadian signals were retransmitted in the United States. These maps show each Canadian station that was retransmitted by a Form 3 cable system during 2004

3

and 2005, identifying the state(s) in which they were retransmitted as reported on the systems’ Statements of Account.

3. Our Witnesses

In preparing this direct case, we have once again focused on demonstrating the relative value to cable operators of the different types of programming broadcast on Canadian distant signals. We conducted two annual surveys of cable operators who carried distant Canadian signals in 2004 and 2005. Professor Debra Ringold will present the results of those studies, which remain consistent with past results. The U.S. cable operators that carry distant Canadian signals attribute nearly 60% of the value of the Canadian signals to the Canadian programming on those stations and the remainder to the programming claimed by Joint Sports and Program Suppliers.

To provide first hand exposure to Canadian television we will present two witnesses who represent different genres of programs, Alison Smith and Joan Fisher. Alison Smith is a CBC news correspondent currently based in Washington, D.C. She is a professional journalist who has worked with CBC for over 30 years and served in numerous capacities. She is appearing to provide an overview of the CBC’s network news operations. Joan Fisher is Legal Counsel for Decode, one of our CCG program suppliers. Decode is an innovative, sought after producer of live action and animation series for many age ranges, from preschoolers to teens. Their productions have been successful at home in Canada and around the .

4. Our Members

I am sponsoring information I collected that identifies and describes members of the Canadian Claimants Group. Attached to my testimony as Exhibit CDN-1-B are lists of the Canadian Claimant Group members for 2004 and 2005. Exhibit CDN-1-C provides an alphabetical collection of profiles describing each member. The Canadian Claimants Group is comprised of the CBC, private Canadian broadcasters, and affiliated broadcast stations as well as Canadian film and television producers and distributors.

Our members have had considerable success licensing their programming in the U.S. and elsewhere. This is an indication that Canadian programming is valued and popular in the United States and internationally

4

Exhibit CDN-1-D is an informal sample of the numerous Canadian properties licensed to U.S. television services by some of our members. I gathered this data to illustrate the demand for Canadian programming in the U.S. cable and broadcast marketplaces. The exhibit shows a broad range of clients in the U.S. It is evident from the list that cable networks are significant clients for Canadian producers. We believe this is important evidence of the appeal of Canadian television programming to U.S. cable operators, since they are the relevant marketplace for both cable network programming and distant signal programming.

Our members also supplied information about awards they received for their programs and sample descriptive brochures.2 Exhibit CDN-1- E reports on some of the awards won by Canadian Claimants. Additional award information is included with the testimony of our other witnesses.

5. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation/Radio-Canada

As I noted in the introductory paragraphs of this testimony, I would like to provide some background and general information about the Canadian call- signs that are most often retransmitted as distant signals in the United States. They are CBC/Radio-Canada’s English and French network stations, referred to as CBC Television and Télévision de Radio-Canada respectively. Back in the 1930s the CBC was created largely in response to concerns that Canadian culture would be drowned by the flood of American broadcasts if a Canadian service was not established. Our mandate, as laid out in Canada’s 1991 Broadcasting Act, states that:

[T]he Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, as the national public broadcaster, should provide radio and television services incorporating a wide range of programming that informs, enlightens and entertains;

[T]he programming provided by the Corporation should:

i. be predominantly and distinctively Canadian,

2 For this proceeding, we have omitted our usual collection of promotional material (program descriptions) received from our members.

5

ii. reflect Canada and its regions to national and regional audiences, while serving the special needs of those regions,

iii. actively contribute to the flow and exchange of cultural expression,

iv. be in English and in French, reflecting the different needs and circumstances of each official language community, including the particular needs and circumstances of English and French linguistic minorities,

v. strive to be of equivalent quality in English and French,

vi. contribute to shared national consciousness and identity,

vii. be made available throughout Canada by the most appropriate and efficient means and as resources become available for the purpose, and

viii. reflect the multicultural and multiracial of Canada.

A. CBC Television ()

In 2004 through 2005, the English network consisted of 27 stations, from coast to coast. Fifteen of these stations were owned and operated by CBC and 12 were affiliates. Affiliates are privately owned stations that carry a requisite number of hours of CBC Television programming. Page one of Exhibit CDN-1-F is a list of CBC Television Network Owned and Operated and Affiliated Stations. Before we moved to a 24-hour broadcast day in October 2006, daily broadcast hours varied across locations. CBC Television broadcasts seven days a week, typically from 6:00 a.m. to 1:00 or 2:00 am. Special events such as live Olympics coverage sometimes extended the broadcast day considerably. Together, CBC Television stations and affiliates reach 99% of the Canadian population.

CBC Television programs are made in Canada or acquired from other countries. Exhibit CDN-1-G contains CBC Television broadcast schedules for the 2003/2004, 2004/2005 and 2005/2006 television . We have “shaded” some blocks on the grids to indicate when some or the entire time slot contains a program claimed by an American group. The schedules illustrate

6

that few of our programs are American. As a general rule, a large majority of the programming on CBC Television signals falls within the claim of the Canadian Claimants Group.

CBC Television’s broadcasting services were conceived with the need to be distinct from American services and are by mandate, predominantly and distinctively Canadian. A direct consequence of this is a schedule that consistently offers American viewers a unique programming alternative. This includes:

• Original and distinctive dramas and that CBC produces, co-produces, develops or licenses.

• Sports programs not ordinarily available on conventional television in the United States, such as amateur international sport competitions (these often involve American athletes), soccer, , show jumping and Canadian football.

• Hockey, tennis, golf, baseball games and events that don’t feature American teams. (CBC sports broadcasts generally include not only the event, but also popular commentary segments such as ’s Coaches’ Corner featuring and Ron McLean.)

• Canadian children’s programming that is commercial-free and non-violent.

• Featured prime-time broadcasts of a diverse offering of arts and cultural programming, such as ballet, operas, and theatrical performances, not generally seen on U.S. commercial television.

• News and current affairs programs reporting on Canada and the world from a Canadian perspective. Not only is the perspective novel, it is beneficial in that it informs Americans of events in Canada that are of interest to many, particularly those living along the Canadian border. (Correspondent Alison Smith will present separate testimony on CBC’s extensive and experienced news programming service.)

• Multiple long-running, award-winning documentary series as well as featured long-form in-depth documentaries.

7

Something else to note is that 100% of the CBC Television network is closed-captioned and an ever-increasing number of programs are broadcast with “described video.”3

In the two years covered by these proceedings there were numerous special programming events. These included the broadcast of:

• High quality contemporary drama and entertainment found nowhere else in , such as H2O, Sex Traffic, North of 60: Distant Drumming, and This is Wonderland.

• Making the Cut, a truly Canadian reality series about hockey players hoping to win actual tryouts for NHL teams, & , a series that asked viewers to nominate the person they thought deserved that title, then featured the top ten in a series that was a mix of debate, documentary, and reality show.

• Almost 300 hours coverage of the 2004 in Athens, , plus the Paralympics. CBC’s Olympic coverage is popular with American viewers who like “live event” coverage, and a focus on sporting event over commentary. CBC Television has received four IOC Golden Rings awards for broadcasting excellence, most recently for our equestrian coverage in Beijing.

• From the fifth estate, award winners – Tsunami: Untold Stories and War Without Borders and from - Passion & Fury: The Emotional Brain.

• The perennially popular .

• Many major news events (these will be addressed in the testimony of Alison Smith).

Some awards won by programs broadcast on CBC Television are listed in Exhibit CDN-1-H.

3 Described video (also known as descriptive audio) is intended to make television accessible to blind or vision-impaired audiences. Through this process relevant action scenes and on-screen text (such as credits) in video programming is described and read by a narrator.

8

I also have a video (DVD) that was produced to launch CBC Television’s “new” for 2004-2005. This is available as Exhibit CDN- 1-I, with an accompanying log of the programs featured on it. The video provides a glimpse of the programs that were retransmitted in 2004 and 2005. (I would like to alert you to the fact that there is a very brief sequence with vintage nudity and some adult references.)

B. La Télévision de Radio-Canada (French Network)

La Télévision de Radio-Canada is our French Television Network (“Radio-Canada”). In 2004 and 2005 it was composed of eight owned and operated stations and five affiliated stations located across the nation. The principal network station is CBFT, located in . The network operates entirely in French. Affiliate relationships for French TV are similar in commitment to the English structure. Page two of Exhibit CDN-1-F is a list of the owned and operated and affiliated stations Radio-Canada.

Radio-Canada operates under the same mandate as CBC Television. It broadcasts an equally wide spectrum of programming, some it produces and others it acquires from our many based claimant members. There is of course the added distinction, and benefit for French speaking Americans, that the programs are created as original French-language productions.

In fact, the retransmission of French-language Canadian programming corresponds with the geographic regions containing higher percentages of French and French-Canadian ancestry Americans. Exhibit CDN-1-J is made up of two maps that were generated on the U.S. Census Bureau web site and are based on information from the 2000 Census. Entitled “Percent of Persons of French (except Basque) Ancestry: 2000” and “Percent of Persons of French Canadian Ancestry: 2000,” they display the concentration of persons by state in the United States who are of French or French Canadian ancestry. These maps demonstrate that high concentrations of these populations are found in the New England states where all the distant retransmission of French-language Canadian signals occurs (this is apparent by comparing the ancestry maps with the retransmission maps in Exhibit CDN-1-A.)

9

In the span of time covered by these proceedings there were numerous special programming events. These included the broadcast of:

• La Grande Ourse, and its sequel L'héritière de Grande Ourse new primetime fantasy melodramas situated in Quebec that created an impressive fan base.

• Tout le monde en parle, an often controversial prime time talk show.

• The second and third seasons of the family L'auberge du chien noir a popular show which is still running in 2008-2009.

• Benjamin, Mona le Vampire, and Galidor - programs for children and youth.

• Adrénaline, Radio-Canada’s award winning weekly program covering professional and amateur sports.

• 223 hours coverage of the Olympic Games in Athens, Greece.

Some awards won by Radio-Canada are listed in Exhibit CDN-1-K. Attached as Exhibit CDN-1-L, you will find Radio-Canada’s French television network broadcast schedules for the 2003/2004, 2004/2005 and 2005/2006 television seasons. Again, the “shaded” blocks indicate where programming is attributable to an American claimant.

6. Distant Carriage of Canadian Signals by U.S. Cable Systems

The next set of exhibits in my testimony is based on data obtained from Cable Data Corporation (CDC). The data on these exhibits are traditionally referred to as “carriage data” because they are based on the carriage of broadcast signals on a distant basis by U.S. cable systems. CDC compiles its database from the information provided by cable systems when they file their semi-annual Statements of Account with the Copyright Office. The CCG and other claimant groups have relied on this data for distribution proceedings for many years. CDC allocates royalties to particular signals using the information provided in the Statements of Accounts.

Our carriage data exhibits focus only on data from Statements of Accounts filed by “Form 3” cable systems which are the largest cable systems

10

in the U.S. Traditionally, in these proceedings, the Copyright Royalty Tribunal and Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panels focused only on information about Form 3 cable systems. Form 3 royalties make up the majority of all royalties paid. According to CDC data, in 2004 and 2005 Form 3 systems paid about 97% of all cable royalties paid by U.S. cable systems. Form 3 systems also are the only systems that report carriage information with enough detail to allow a determination of which types of signals and programming are responsible for generating the royalties. We continue this approach so that current carriage and royalty data can be compared to prior years to demonstrate changed circumstances.

It should be noted that during the years at issue in these proceedings there was a change in the royalty structure. As shown on the website of the Copyright Office, effective with the 2005-2 accounting period, the amount of semi-annual gross receipts necessary to qualify as a Form 3 system rose from $379,600 to $527,600. At the same time, the royalty rates for the base rate fee and the minimum fee were increased.

The data that are presented in these exhibits generally cover 1998 through 2005. As we file this testimony, there is no decision on the 2000-2003 cable royalty distribution proceeding. Consequently, we continue to use the 1998 and 1999 data to establish the foundation from which we show changed circumstances. In some cases, where it is necessary to take a longer term view, we present data going back further. As a general rule, the data for the years 1999 and earlier are based on CDC data presented by the CCG in the 1998 - 1999 Cable Royalty Distribution Proceeding (Docket No. 2001-8 CARP CD 98-99). The data for the years 2000 through 2003 are the same data that was presented in the 2000-2003 Cable Royalty Distribution Proceeding (Docket No. 2008-2 CRB CD 2000-2003) and received from Cable Data Corporation in the fall and of 2008-2009. The data for 2004-2005 are from Cable Data Corporation and were obtained in the spring of 2009. Unless otherwise noted, all data in these exhibits is based on the carriage of signals on a distant basis.

A. Royalties Paid for the Carriage of Canadian Distant Signals

CDC data show that cable systems have paid more in royalties for Canadian signals in 2004-2005 than in 1998 and 1999. In fact, the amount of royalties paid for Canadian signals grew at a greater rate than the combined growth rate for all other signal types during the same period. That said, total

11

Canadian distant royalties in 2004 and 2005 are a little less than they were at the high point of 2003.

Exhibit CDN-1-M presents the royalties information for 1998 through 2005. The first four pages of Exhibit CDN-1-M show royalty fees derived from the retransmission of distant signals by U.S. cable systems. There is a table for all royalties and one for each of the three types of fees: base, 3.75% and Syndicated Exclusivity royalties (Syndex). Syndex data is shown in this exhibit simply for the sake of completeness. The CCG does not claim any right to receive a share of Syndex funds.

The tables on the first four pages of this exhibit show the royalties paid each accounting period for Canadian signals and for the combined total for all other types of signals (Educational, Network, Independent, Low Power, and Mexican). They are broken into two sections. At the top are the fees for each accounting period in the last and current proceedings. Included are the averages for the four accounting periods of last proceeding. On the right side, the tables show the percentage change for each accounting period from the average for the last proceeding. Below that are the same data presented on an annual basis (determined by adding the numbers for the two accounting periods in each year). In this and other exhibits, we chose to show relative change of Canadian signal data and relative change of data for all other signal types combined to illustrate that though both generally grew from the time of the 1998-1999 Distribution Proceeding, the growth for Canadian signals has been greater.

These pages are followed by three pages of graphs that show the relative growth since the 1998-1999 Proceeding in distant total, base and 3.75% royalties paid for Canadian signals compared to all other signals types. The percentages are the same as those shown on the tables. The charts illustrate that fees paid for Canadian signals grew at a substantially greater rate than fees paid for all other signals.

Exhibit CDN-1-N is a seven page exhibit that again shows the total distant, base and 3.75% fees, this time broken out by the four primary signal types: Independent, Network, Educational, and Canadian. We do not break out Mexican and Low Power Signals, which combined contribute from 0.14% to 1.5% of total royalties in each accounting period from 1998 to 2005.

The first four pages are tables that show the amount of royalties by signal type and then below, a table showing the relative percentage of the total

12

for each signal type. There is a table for all royalties and one for each of the three types of fees: base, 3.75% and Syndex royalties. The last three pages of this exhibit are graphs that visually display the relative change per signal type for total, base and 3.75% fees.

Exhibit CDN-1-O looks at certain aspects of the minimum fees paid by cable operators. Form 3 cable systems are required to pay a minimum fee (equal to the cost of retransmitting a distant signal as the first full Distant Signal Equivalent (DSE) on the base royalty fee payment scale).4 If the system carries no distant signals or less than one full DSE of distant signals, the system pays the minimum fee. Specifically, the exhibit addresses the amount of minimum fees paid by systems with no distant carriage at all (sometimes called “zero DSE systems”). (This exhibit is not intended to track or document all minimum fees, such as those paid by systems carrying more than zero but less than one DSE of distant signals.)

This exhibit shows that starting in 1998-1 there was a sudden and dramatic increase in the number of systems carrying no distant signals but paying the minimum fees. Comparing the period covered by the 1990-1992 Distribution Proceeding to the 1998-1999 Distribution Proceeding, there was a very pronounced change in the payment of these fees while in contrast there was relatively minor change from the period covered by the 1998-1999 Distribution Proceeding to the current period.

Exhibit CDN-1-P is a one-page summary of the amount of distant royalties paid per year for Canadian signals in 1998 through 2005 for base and 3.75% fees. The tables also show the fees paid for Canadian signals as a percentage of fees paid for all distant signals. This is calculated by dividing royalties paid for Canadian signals by the royalties paid for all distant signals. Table 2, infra., shows that the percentages of base and 3.75% Royalties paid for Canadian signals increased meaningfully since the 1998-1999 Proceeding.

4 Form 1 and Form 2 systems do not pay this minimum fee.

13

Table 2 Canadian Signal Royalties as a Percentage of All Distant Signal Royalties Year Base Royalties 3.75% Royalties 1998 3.31027% 0.25372% 1999 3.64297% 0.62980% 2000 3.84417% 0.58308% 2001 4.06297% 2.07669% 2002 4.80822% 3.36590% 2003 4.73598% 4.17951% 2004 4.15345% 3.50111% 2005 4.36346% 3.22989%

Exhibit CDN-1-, entitled “Total Distant Royalties Paid by Form 3 Systems for Canadians Signals,” shows the sum of total distant royalties paid for Canadian distant signals during the years 2004 and 2005, broken out by call sign. The exhibit also shows how those royalties compare as a proportion of all distant royalties paid for Canadian signals. Notably, the first four signals of the 21 on the list account for about 77% of all royalties paid for Canadian signals.5

B. Subscriber Instances and Instances of Carriage

Another way to examine growth in the carriage of Canadian signals is to look at “Subscriber Instances” and “Instances of Carriage.” Subscriber Instances measure the number of cable system subscribers who have access to a distant signal. In contrast, “Instances of Carriage” are the number of times a signal or signal type is carried by a cable system on a distant basis. The number of Instances of Carriage tells nothing about the size of each cable system. Thus, whether a cable system has 2000 subscribers or 2,000,000 subscribers, the system would count as one Instance of Carriage. As cable systems merge and consolidate, the number of Instances of Carriage for signals on those systems may decrease without decreasing the total number of Subscriber Instances.

5 The royalty numbers in this exhibit need one qualification: the sum of these numbers differ from the sum of those reported in Exhibit CDN-1-M by approximately $31,000 because of the way in which Cable Data Corporation reports the royalties in its database. This does not meaningfully affect the relative share of all royalties paid for each Canadian signal during 2004 and 2005.

14

Exhibit CDN-1-R, entitled “Distant Subscriber Instances” presents the number of cable television subscribers receiving signals retransmitted on a distant basis by U.S. cable systems. It is important to note that the number of subscribers presented in this table is cumulative. For example, if a cable system has 10,000 subscribers and carries one Canadian and four independent signals on a distant basis in a given accounting period, CDC allocates 10,000 subscribers to Canadian signals for that period and 40,000 to independent signals. While the result is that the total number of Subscriber Instances reported by CDC exceeds the number of people who actually subscribe, the Subscriber Instances as reported by CDC are an accurate depiction of the number of people who can see a particular distant signal in the U.S. and, in the aggregate, present a reasonable basis for comparing the relative reach of each signal type.

Page 1 of this exhibit shows that the relative reach of Canadian signals, as measured by the number of Subscriber Instances, has grown at a rate that exceeds the growth of other signal types.

Page 2 shows Distant Subscriber Instances broken out by individual signal types.

Exhibit CDN-1-S, entitled “Distant Instances of Carriage“ presents a table showing the number of times Canadian signals and all other signals were retransmitted on a distant basis by U.S. cable systems during each accounting period beginning in 1998. Page 1 compares all Canadian signals to all other signals and page 2 breaks out the information by individual signal types. As can be seen, Canadian signals make up a very small portion of all Instances of Carriage. In fact, Canadian signals consistently make up only about 1.8% of all Instances of Carriage in 2004 and 2005, even though by 2005, those signals were responsible for over four percent of the total royalties.

Exhibit CDN-1-T is a set of charts examining the change in growth of Canadian signal carriage by combining information about Subscriber Instances and Instances of Carriage. These charts show that as the absolute number of Instances of Carriage have fallen for Canadian distant signals (i.e., slightly fewer signals are being retransmitted now than in the 1998-1999 Proceeding) the number of people with access to Canadian signals, as measured by Subscriber Instances, has increased. This increase is not just the result of growth in the overall cable market nor simply the result of merger. The charts show that the

15

growth is greater for Canadian signals than that experienced by other signals types in the same period.

Page 1 of the exhibit compares Instances of Carriage over a 23 year period to the number of Subscriber Instances per Instances of Carriage. The graph on the left, for Canadian signals, shows that while the number of Instances of Carriage decreased over time, the number of Subscriber Instances per Instance of Carriage increased. In contrast, the graph on the right, for all other distant signals, shows that while Instances of Carriage have come down dramatically, the number of Subscriber Instances per Instance of Carriage have changed very modestly in that time, decreasing somewhat in the current period.

Page 2 of the exhibit compares Instances of Carriage to total distant subscriber instances over the same 23 year period. The chart on the left, for “Canadian Signals,” shows that even as the Instances of Carriage have decreased, the total number of Subscriber Instances on cable systems that carry Canadian distant signals has increased. The graph on the right, for all other distant signals shows that historically the change in Subscriber Instances for non-Canadian distant signals closely tracks the number of Instances of Carriage for those distant signals.

Both exhibits show that the reach of Canadian distant signals grew disproportionately to the movement of all other distant signals.

C. Fees per Instance of Carriage and per Subscriber Instance

Another way to look at the changed circumstances is to compare the amount of fees paid per Subscriber Instance and per Instance of Carriage for Canadian signals and for all other signal types. In both cases, growth since 1998-1999 has been greater for Canadian signals than for other signal types.

Exhibit CDN-1-U, entitled “Relative Change in Total Royalties Paid per Subscriber Instance” is made up of tables and a graph showing the relative change in total distant fees per Subscriber Instance since the 1998-1999 Proceeding for Canadian signals and all other signals. The total distant fees paid per Subscriber Instance can be determined by dividing the fees paid for the signal type each year by the number of Subscriber Instances for that year. This chart shows the relative change in those numbers by year since the last proceeding.

16

The chart illustrates that while royalties paid per Subscriber Instance have grown for all signals since the last proceeding, they have grown greater for the Canadian signals than for the other signal types.

Exhibit CDN-1-V, entitled “Relative Change in Total Royalties Paid per Instance of Carriage” is made up of tables and a graph showing the relative change in total fees per Instance of Carriage since the 1998-1999 Proceeding for Canadian signals and all other signals. This chart shows a relative comparison of the change in what cable system operators pay for each Instance of Carriage.

The chart shows that while the royalties paid per Instance of Carriage have grown for all signals since the last proceeding, they have grown greater for the Canadian signals than for all other signal types.

7. Conclusion

The quality, quantity, breadth and depth of Canadian programming enriches the lives of Americans living along the Canadian border. They are entertained and informed with a perspective that is decidedly different from that found on American broadcast and cable television programming. They have access to a schedule of programs that they cannot see elsewhere. In fact, CBC/Radio-Canada programming is specifically mandated to be different from that seen on American stations. To American cable system operators, the carriage of Canadian distant signals is an easy way to bring diversity to the channel lineup, enhancing the cable operators’ ability to attract and retain subscribers.

In 2004 and 2005 Canadian distant signal carriage as measured by royalties and subscribers shows sustained demand for the programming on these signals by cable operators, particularly when compared to the royalties and subscribers attributable to the Canadian distant signals in 1998-1999. In 2004-2005, Form 3 cable operators carried a total of about 980 different distant signals each accounting period (and some cable operators’ chose to carry no distant signals at all). Given the broad array of choices, the decision of selective cable operators to carry Canadian signals on a distant basis is a clear indication that those cable operators value the programming. There can be no serious question that the value of Canadian programming is equal to at least what was paid for the carriage of Canadian signals.

17 THE CANADIAN RETRANSMISSION ZONE YT The Copyright Act allows the NT retransmission of Canadian signals by NU U.S. cable systems in the northern U.S. and defines the area in the United BC States within which cable systems may not retransmit Canadian AB MB broadcast stations. SK QC NL “The secondary transmission to the public by a cable system of a ON WA performance or display of a work PE embodied in a primary transmission MT made by a broadcast station licensed OR ND NB MN by an appropriate governmental ID NS authority of Canada or is WY actionable as an act of infringement SD WI NY ME under section 501, and is fully subject IA MI NH to the remedies provided by sections NE PA 502 through 506 and section 509, if (A) MA OH with respect to Canadian signals, the IL IN VT community of the cable system is located more than 150 miles from the United States-Canadian border and is also located south of the forty-second parallel of latitude”...17 U.S.C. 111(c)(4)(A)

Exhibit CDN-1-A, page 1 CBCCBC stationsstations retransmittedretransmitted byby FormForm 33 cablecable systemssystems asas distantdistant signalssignals inin atat leastleast oneone accountingaccounting periodperiod duringduring 2004-2005.2004-2005.

CallsignCallsign CityCity LanguageLanguage CBATCBAT FrederictonFredericton EnglishEnglish CBAFTCBAFT MonctonMoncton FrenchFrench CBETCBET WindsorWindsor EnglishEnglish CBFTCBFT MontrealMontreal FrenchFrench CBLTCBLT TorontoToronto EnglishEnglish CBMTCBMT MontrealMontreal EnglishEnglish CBOTCBOT OttawaOttawa EnglishEnglish CBUTCBUT VancouverVancouver EnglishEnglish BC CBWTCBWT WinnipegWinnipeg EnglishEnglish CKRTCKRT Rivière-du-loupRivière-du-loup FrenchFrench CKSHCKSH SherbrookeSherbrooke French French AB CKWSCKWS KingstonKingston EnglishEnglish CBUT CKRT SK MB QC ON CKSH CBOT CKWS WA CBWT CBFT CBET CBLT CBAFT ND CBMT NB CBAT MN

ME MI NY NH OH VT MA

Exhibit CDN-1-A, page 2 CTVCTV stationsstations retransmittedretransmitted byby FormForm 33 cablecable systemssystems asas distantdistant signalssignals inin atat leastleast oneone accountingaccounting periodperiod duringduring 2004-20052004-2005..

CallsignCallsign CityCity LanguageLanguage CFCFCFCF MontrealMontreal English English CFTOCFTO TorontoToronto English English CJOHCJOH OttawaOttawa EnglishEnglish CKYCKY WinnipegWinnipeg EnglishEnglish

BC

AB MB SK CKY QC ON

CFTO CJOH ND CFCF

NY

VT

Exhibit CDN-1-A, page 3 CanwestCanwest GlobalGlobal stationsstations retransmittedretransmitted byby FormForm 33 cablecable systemssystems asas distantdistant signalssignals inin atat leastleast oneone accountingaccounting periodperiod duringduring 2004-2005.2004-2005.

CallsignCallsign CityCity LanguageLanguage CIIICIII TorontoToronto EnglishEnglish CISACISA LethbridgeLethbridge EnglishEnglish CHCHCHCH HamiltonHamilton EnglishEnglish

BC

AB SK MB CISA QC ON CIII MT CHCH

NY

Exhibit CDN-1-A, page 4 TVATVA stationsstations retransmittedretransmitted byby FormForm 33 cablecable systemssystems asas distantdistant signalssignals inin atat leastleast oneone accountingaccounting periodperiod duringduring 2004-2005.2004-2005.

CallsignCallsign CityCity LanguageLanguage CHLTCHLT SherbrookeSherbrooke FrenchFrench CIMTCIMT Rivière-du-loupRivière-du-loup French French

BC

AB SK MB QC ON

CIMT CHLT

ME

NH

VT

Exhibit CDN-1-A, page 5

2004 Canadian Claimants Group Members

1. Air Farce Productions Incorporated 2. Alcina Pictures Limited 3. Anaid Productions Incorporated 4. Breakthrough Entertainment Incorporated 5. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) 6. Canadian Feature Film Productions (o/a The Feature Film Project) 7. Canwest Global Broadcasting Incorporated (CIII/CIHF/CJNT/ CICT/CHCH/ CITV/CKRD/CKND/CISA/ CHBC/CHEK/CHAN/CKMI/CFSK/CFRE) 8. Carol Reynolds Productions Incorporated 9. CCI Entertainment Limited, Cambium Film & Video Productions Limited, Catalyst Entertainment Incorporated, CCI Releasing Incorporated, Cambium Releasing Incorporated, Catalyst Distribution Incorporated 10. Cineflix Incorporated, Forum 5 Incorporated 11. CinéGroupe Corporation, CinéGroupe Animation, CinéGroupe Distribution, Animation JP Incorporated 12. Cinémaginaire Incorporated 13. CineNova Productions Incorporated 14. Cirque du Soleil Images Incorporated 15. CKWS Television 16. Communications Claude Héroux Plus Incorporated 17. Cookie Jar Entertainment Incorporated 18. Cooper Rock Pictures Incorporated 19. Crescent Entertainment Limited, Marine Life Productions Limited, Warrior Productions Limited, Nightman Productions Incorporated, Crow Productions Incorporated, Monkey House Productions Limited 20. Crossroads Christian Communications Incorporated 21. CTV Television Incorporated (CFTO/CJOH/CICC(CIEW)/CFCF/CIVT/CKY) 22. Decode Entertainment Incorporated, Decode/Blobheads Productions Incorporated, Decode /Save‐Ums Productions Incorporated, Hoobs Productions Incorporated, Angela Productions Incorporated, Decode/BTC Productions Incorporated 23. Docutainment Plus Productions Incorporated 24. Ego Film Arts 25. Ellis Entertainment Corporation 26. Epitome Distribution Incorporated, P.W.T. Distribution Incorporated 27. Filmline International (1999) Incorporated 28. Filmoption International 29. Films Zingaro Incorporated, Amérimage‐Spectra Incorporated, Sogestalt Télévision Incorporated, Sogestalt TV Québec, Productions Bleu Blanc Rouge Incorporated, L’Equipe Spectra Incorporated

Exhibit CDN‐1‐B

1

2004 Canadian Claimants Group Members

30. Fireworks Distributing Corporation, Fireworks Media Incorporated, Fireworks Entertainment Incorporated 31. Four Entertainment Incorporated, Force Four Productions Limited 32. Galafilm Incorporated, Galafilm Productions (I) Incorporated, Galafilm Productions (III) Incorporated, Galafilm Productions (IV) Incorporated, Galafilm Productions (V) Incorporated, Galafilm Productions (VI) Incorporated, Galafilm Productions (VII) Incorporated, Galafilm Productions (VIII) Incorporated, Galafilm Productions (IX) Incorporated, Galafilm Productions (X) Incorporated, Galafilm Productions (XI) Incorporated, Galafilm Productions (2000) Incorporated 33. IMX Communications Incorporated, Imagex Limited 34. Infinity Films Entertainment Group Limited, Bog Productions Incorporated, Bog Production (1999) Limited, Precipice Productions Limited, Zachor Productions Limited, KKBL No. 293 Ventures Limited, Nutshell Productions Limited, Duty Productions Limited, Guinea Pig Productions Limited, Comedic Productions Limited, Race Productions Limited 35. Insight Limited 36. TV Incorporated/Juste pour rire TV Incorporated 37. Kinémage International Incorporated 38. King Motion Picture Corporation 39. Knight Enterprises 40. Corporation 41. Media Headquarters Film & Television Incorporated 42. Minds Eye Holdings Incorporated 43. Motion Picture Distribution LP 44. Muse Entertainment Enterprises Incorporated 45. National Film Board of Canada 46. Limited 47. Norflicks Productions Limited, Eternity Incorporated, Seapower Productions Incorporated 48. Novem Productions Incorporated, Novem Television Incorporated, Novem Réalité Incorporated 49. Omni Film Productions Limited, Water Street Pictures Limited 50. Educational Communications Authority 51. Peace Arch Entertainment Group Incorporated 52. Incorporated 53. Productions Avanti Ciné Vidéo Incorporated, Filiales de Productions Avanti Ciné Vidéo Incorporated, 9067‐2775 Québec Incorporated, 9067‐2825 Québec Incorporated, 9067‐2841 Québec Incorporated, 9067‐2858 Québec Incorporated, 9067‐2866 Québec Incorporated 54. Productions Pixcom Incorporated 55. Productions Vendôme II Incorporated

2

2004 Canadian Claimants Group Members

56. Productions Vidéofilms Ltée, Les Productions Le Pollock Incorporated, Vidéofilms (Chartrand et Simonne) Incorporated, Vidéofilms (Jean Duceppe) Incorporated 57. Protocol Entertainment Incorporated 58. Radical Sheep Productions Incorporated 59. Raincoast Storylines Limited 60. Rhombus International Incorporated 61. S & S Productions Incorporated 62. Shaftesbury Films Incorporated, Camilla Films Incorporated, Shaftesbury Swann Films Incorporated, Prairie Doves Incorporated, External Affairs Limited, Shaftesbury Mysteries Incorporated, Shaftesbury Mysteries II Incorporated, Shaftesbury Mysteries III Incorporated, Shaftesbury Mysteries IV Incorporated, Shaftesbury Mysteries V Incorporated, Shaftesbury Mysteries VI Incorporated, Shaftesbury Kids I Incorporated, Shaftesbury Kids II Incorporated, Shaftesbury Kids III Incorporated, Shaftesbury Kids V Incorporated, Shaftesbury CanLit I Incorporated, Shaftesbury CanLit II Incorporated, Shaftesbury Stories I Incorporated, Shaftesbury Stories II Incorporated, Two Two Incorporated, Sleep Well Productions Incorporated, Shaftesbury LLHP Incorporated, Shaftesbury Regenesis I Incorporated 63. Soapbox/Stranger Productions Incorporated, Molly’s Reach II Productions Incorporated 64. Sound Venture Productions Limited 65. Sphère Média Incorporated, Sphère Média 2004 Incorporated, Sphère Média 2003 Incorporated, Sphère Média 2002 Incorporated, Sphère Média 2001 Incorporated, Productions Charlotte Incorporated 66. Studio B Entertainment Incorporated 67. Sullivan Entertainment International Incorporated 68. Summerhill Entertainment Incorporated, Summerhill Sports Incorporated, Summerhill Productions Incorporated, Summerhill Lifestyle Incorporated 69. Television (CKPR/CHFD‐TV) 70. TQS Incorporated, Les Productions Point‐Final Incorporated, Les Productions Point‐Final II Incorporated 71. TVA Films, a division of TVA Group 72. TVA Group Incorporated 73. Vivaclic Incorporated 74. WestWind Pictures Limited 75. Zone 3 Incorporated

3

2005 Canadian Claimants Group Members

1. ACPAV (Association coopérative de productions audio‐visuelles) Corporation ACPAV Incorporated (Corporation de développement et de production ACPAV Incorporated) 2. Air Farce Productions Incorporated 3. Alcina Pictures Limited 4. Anaid Productions Incorporated 5. Breakthrough Entertainment Incorporated 6. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) 7. Canadian Feature Film Productions (o/a The Feature Film Project) 8. Canwest Media Works Incorporated (CIII/CIHF/CJNT/CICT/CHCA/CHCH/CITV/CKRD/ CKND/ CISA/CHBC/CHEK/CHAN/CKMI/CFSK/CFRE) 9. Carol Reynolds Productions Incorporated 10. CCI Entertainment Limited, Cambium Film & Video Productions Limited, Catalyst Entertainment Incorporated, CCI Releasing Incorporated, Cambium Releasing Incorporated, Catalyst Distribution Incorporated 11. CHUM Television International 12. Cineflix Incorporated, Forum 5 Incorporated 13. CinéGroupe Corporation, CinéGroupe Animation, CinéGroupe Distribution, Animation JP Incorporated 14. CineNova Productions Incorporated 15. Cine Roman Incorporated 16. Cirque du Soleil Images Incorporated 17. CKWS Television 18. Cookie Jar Entertainment Incorporated 19. Cooper Rock Pictures Incorporated 20. Crescent Entertainment Limited, Marine Life Productions Limited, Warrior Productions Limited, Nightman Productions Incorporated, Crow Productions Incorporated, Monkey House Productions Limited 21. Crossroads Christian Communications Incorporated 22. CTV Television Incorporated (CFTO/CJOH/CICC(CIEW)/CFCF/CIVT/CKY) 23. Decode Entertainment Incorporated, Decode/Blobheads Production Incorporated, Decode /Save‐Ums Production Incorporated, Hoobs Production Incorporated, Angela Production Incorporated, Decode/BTC Production Incorporated 24. Ego Film Arts 25. Ellis Entertainment Corporation 26. Epitome Distribution Incorporated, P.W.T. Distribution Incorporated 27. Filmline International (1999) Incorporated 28. Filmoption International 29. Films Zingaro Incorporated, Amérimage‐Spectra Incorporated, Sogestalt Télévision Incorporated, Sogestalt TV Québec, Productions Bleu Blanc Rouge Incorporated, L’Equipe Spectra Incorporated 30. Force Four Entertainment Incorporated, Force Four Productions Limited

4

2005 Canadian Claimants Group Members

31. Galafilm Incorporated, Galafilm Productions (I) Incorporated, Galafilm Productions (III) Incorporated, Galafilm Productions (IV) Incorporated, Galafilm Productions (V) Incorporated, Galafilm Productions (VI) Incorporated, Galafilm Productions (VII) Incorporated, Galafilm Productions (VIII) Incorporated, Galafilm Productions (IX) Incorporated, Galafilm Productions (X) Incorporated, Galafilm Productions (XI) Incorporated, Galafilm Productions (2000) Incorporated 32. IMX Communications Incorporated, Imagex Limited 33. Insight Production Company Limited 34. Just for Laughs TV Incorporated/Juste pour rire TV Incorporated 35. Kinémage International Incorporated 36. King Motion Picture Corporation 37. Maple Pictures Corporation 38. Media Headquarters Film & Television Incorporated 39. Minds Eye Holdings Incorporated 40. Motion Picture Distribution LP 41. Muse Entertainment Enterprises Incorporated 42. National Film Board of Canada 43. Nelvana Limited 44. Norflicks Productions Limited, Eternity Incorporated, Seapower Productions Incorporated 45. Novem Productions Incorporated, Novem Television Incorporated, Novem Réalité Incorporated 46. Omni Film Productions Limited, Water Street Pictures Limited 47. Ontario Educational Communications Authority 48. Paradigm Pictures Corporation, Demi‐Monde Productions Limited, Cherry Pepper Productions Limited 49. Productions Avanti Ciné Vidéo Incorporated, Filiales de Productions Avanti Ciné Vidéo Incorporated, 9067‐2775 Québec Incorporated, 9067‐2825 Québec Incorporated, 9067‐2841 Québec Incorporated, 9067‐2858 Québec Incorporated, 9067‐2866 Québec Incorporated 50. Productions Pixcom Incorporated 51. Productions Point de Mire Incorporated 52. Productions Vendôme II Incorporated 53. Productions Vidéofilms Ltée, Les Productions Le Pollock Incorporated, Vidéofilms (Chartrand et Simonne) Incorporated, Vidéofilms (Jean Duceppe) Incorporated 54. Radical Sheep Productions Incorporated 55. Raincoast Storylines Limited 56. Rhombus International Incorporated 57. S & S Productions Incorporated

5

2005 Canadian Claimants Group Members

58. Shaftesbury Films Incorporated, Camilla Films Incorporated, Shaftesbury Swann Films Incorporated, Prairie Doves Incorporated, External Affairs Limited, Shaftesbury Mysteries Incorporated, Shaftesbury Mysteries II Incorporated, Shaftesbury Mysteries III Incorporated, Shaftesbury Mysteries IV Incorporated, Shaftesbury Mysteries V Incorporated, Shaftesbury Mysteries VI Incorporated, Shaftesbury Kids I Incorporated, Shaftesbury Kids II Incorporated, Shaftesbury Kids III Incorporated, Shaftesbury Kids V Incorporated, Shaftesbury CanLit I Incorporated, Shaftesbury CanLit II Incorporated, Shaftesbury Stories I Incorporated, Shaftesbury Stories II Incorporated, Two Two Incorporated, Sleep Well Production Incorporated, Shaftesbury LLHP Incorporated, Shaftesbury Regenesis I Incorporated 59. Sound Venture Productions Limited 60. Sphère Média Incorporated, Sphère Média 2004 Incorporated, Sphère Média 2003 Incorporated, Sphère Média 2002 Incorporated, Sphère Média 2001 Incorporated, Productions Charlotte Incorporated 61. Studio B Entertainment Incorporated 62. Sullivan Entertainment International Incorporated 63. Summerhill Entertainment Incorporated, Summerhill Sports Incorporated, Summerhill Productions Incorporated, Summerhill Lifestyle Incorporated 64. TQS Incorporated, Les Productions Point‐Final Incorporated, Les Productions Point‐Final II Incorporated 65. TVA Group Incorporated 66. Vivaclic Incorporated 67. WestWind Pictures Limited 68. Zone 3 Incorporated

6 CANADIAN CLAIMANT PROFILES 2004 – 2005

ACPAV

Founded in 1971, ACPAV has launched over 40 feature films and more than 50 television documentaries and series. The team is made up of three producers with more than 20 years of experience.

Air Farce Productions

Independent television production company producing , one of Canada’s leading current affairs comedy series. Air Farce has existed on radio, television, books, audio recordings and stage since 1973. http://airfarce.com/

Alcina Pictures

Alcina Pictures is a ‐based film and television production company committed to developing and producing domestic and internationally marketable commercial and arthouse pictures. Part of the Canadian independent community, Alcina prides itself on working with today's new talent and voices of both Canadian and International cinema. Alcina has developed co‐production relationships with companies in Germany, , Mexico, Ireland and the U.S. http://www.alcinapictures.com/

Alliance Films Incorporated/Alliance VivaFilm Incorporated

Alliance Films (previously known as Motion Picture Distribution Incorporated) is a leading distributor of motion pictures in Canada, with motion picture distribution operations in the and . The company distributes filmed entertainment to theatres, on DVD, online and to television broadcasters. Alliance Films holds the Canadian distribution rights to the productions of leading independent studios. http://alliancefilms.com/

Amérimage‐Spectra Incorporated

Producers of the Festival International de Jazz de Montréal Television Programming. Over the past decade the company has carved out an enviable place for itself in international markets, and today is regarded as one of the most important Canadian television and film producers in performing arts. Amérimage Spectra is internationally recognized for its know‐how and expertise in large‐scale television productions. http://www.amerimage‐spectra.com/

Anaïd Productions

Anaïd produces award‐winning, dynamic, and internationally recognized real‐life and dramatic television series. http://www.anaid.com/

Exhibit CDN‐1‐C 1 CANADIAN CLAIMANT PROFILES 2004 – 2005

Breakthrough Films & Television

Breakthrough Films & Television is a major producer of popular drama, factual and lifestyle programming, as well as children’s live‐action and . The catalogue includes animated series , and Miss BG, drama series, Paradise Falls, as well as factual programs, Design Match, War of the Wheels and Plastic Makes Perfect. Early success stories include the popular children’s series, The Adventures of Dudley the Dragon. http://www.breakthroughfilms.com/

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

The CBC is Canada’s largest cultural institution. Owned by all Canadians, it is the only cultural institution and the only broadcaster offering services to all Canadians in English and in French across Canada. The CBC has a heritage as the nation’s greatest supplier of Canadian cultural content. Its artists, artisans and its presence from coast to coast set standards for excellence across the entire broadcasting system. It is a Crown Corporation governed by the 1991 Broadcasting Act and subject to regulations of the Canadian Radio‐television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). http://www.cbc.ca/

Canadian Film Centre

CFC Feature Film Project is a comprehensive development and production‐ focused mentorship program for emerging Canadian feature film makers, providing 100% of the financing and mentorship needed for the successful Canadian Film Centre development, production and marketing of dramatic feature films. http://www.cfccreates.com/

CanWest Global Broadcasting Incorporated/Canwest Mediaworks Incorporated

CanWest’s holdings include conventional television networks Global Television and E! The broadcast brands are complemented by 26 specialty networks. CanWest operates one of Canada's largest newspaper chains; the publications are complemented by several online properties under the canada.com network. In July 2000 the new Global Television Network was established, which comprises stations across Canada. In 2004 the CanWest MediaWorks brand was launched to integrate and unify all the diverse brands of the company. http://www.canwestmediaworks.com/

Carol Reynolds Productions Incorporated

Independent producer of movies of the week and variety specials featuring artists such as Céline Dion and Sarah McLachlin.

2 CANADIAN CLAIMANT PROFILES 2004 – 2005

CCI Entertainment Limited

Formed in 2002 through the merger of Cambium Entertainment Corporation and Catalyst Entertainment Incorporated, CCI Entertainment is founded on over 30 years of experience in television production and international distribution. During this time, the Toronto‐based company has set new standards for excellence, service and integrity in the Canadian entertainment arena. CCI Entertainment's mission is to create great television that entertains, engages minds and hearts; and fuels the imagination. http://www.ccientertainment.com/

CHUM Limited

A media company based out of Toronto, Ontario, CHUM operated several independent television and radio stations, as well as specialty networks. It also supplied syndicated programming to Canadian network broadcasters. http://www.ctvglobemedia.com/

Cineflix & Forum 5

Cineflix, a subsidiary company of Forum 5, is an international group of companies producing, acquiring and distributing innovative non‐fiction television programming in the factual entertainment, factual and documentary genres for television networks worldwide. Since 2000, Cineflix has grown from a small independent Montréal based producer to one of the world’s leading international production and distribution companies with offices in Montréal, Toronto, London and Dublin. http://www.cineflix.com/

Cinégroupe Corporation/9151‐4190 Québec Incorporated

CinéGroupe specializes in forging alliances to finance and produce programming that captures audiences. One of the company’s hallmarks is its ability to work with different partners and clients across North America and around the world. CinéGroupe boasts over 1,000 hours of award winning, world animation & live‐ action programming. http://www.cinegroupe.com/

Cinémaginaire Incorporated

Cinémaginaire Incorporated is a Montreal company, which produces feature films and documentaries. It was created in 1988 – the realization of a dream for founder Denise Robert and associate Daniel Louis. Known for its talent for innovation, the company has made more than 20 feature films that have garnered international acclaim and numerous awards. These include an Academy Award in 2004 for The Barbarian Invasions.

Ciné‐Roman Incorporated

Ciné‐Roman Inc. was a Montreal based production company founded by the late singer‐ songwriter‐producer Tony Roman.

3 CANADIAN CLAIMANT PROFILES 2004 – 2005

Cinenova Productions Incorporated

Cinenova is a Stratford, Ontario based producer of documentaries for television.

Cirque du Soleil Incorporated

Cirque du Soleil Images, the production arm of Cirque du Soleil®, is dedicated to the creation of original and innovative content for TV, DVD and film. For each new venture, the division strives to deliver products that reflect the image, creativity and spirit of the Cirque du Soleil brand and its live shows. Holdings: Cirque du Soleil Images Incorporated, Les Films Lampo Di Vita Incorporated, Créations Musca Incorporated, Productions Conte Incorporated, Productions Conte II Incorporated, Productions Conte III Incorporated and Productions Conte IV Incorporated. http://www.cirquedusoleil.com/

CKWS‐TV

CKWS is a private affiliate of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation television network located in Kingston, Ontario, providing coverage in Eastern Ontario. owns CKWS. http://www.ckwstv.com/

Cookie Jar Entertainment

Cookie Jar is one of the fastest growing most dynamic kids companies in the world today. It has become a leader in entertainment, creating successful, innovative, and immensely popular entertainment and educational content for kids around the world. Cookie Jar brands are valued for their entertainment, educational excellence and engaging content. Well‐respected Cookie Jar products and shows like “The Doodlebops,” “Hurray For Huckle! (),” “Will & Dewitt,” “,” “Gerald McBoing Boing” and “Arthur” allow kids to have fun and learn at the same time. http://www.thecookiejarcompany.com/

Cooper Rock Pictures Incorporated

Cooper Rock Pictures Incorporated produces engaging and thought provoking programming for broadcasters worldwide. It specializes in creating stories that reflect a wide range of emotions and circumstance. The company successfully portrays the human‐interest side of topics as diverse as sports, health and history. http://www.cooperrock.com/

Crescent Entertainment

Crescent Entertainment is an award winning, film and television production company based in , Canada. Since 1990, company partners Jayme Pfahl, Harold Tichenor, and Gordon Mark have been involved in over forty productions, specializing in the development and production of original feature films, television and documentaries. http://www.crescent.ca/

4 CANADIAN CLAIMANT PROFILES 2004 – 2005

Crossroads Christian Communications

Crossroads Christian Communications Incorporated produces a wide variety of Christian ministry programs and carries other programs that also promote positive values and moral decency. It makes creative use of television and other media, together with other activities, which respond to the mission conscience and needs of the constituency. http://www.crossroads.ca/

CTV Television Incorporated

CTV, Canada's largest private broadcaster offers a wide range of quality news, sports, information, and entertainment programming. CTVglobemedia Incorporated is Canada's premier multi‐media company, which owns CTV Incorporated and . CTV Incorporated also owns radio stations across the country, and leading national specialty channels. http://www.ctvglobemedia.com/

Decode Entertainment / Decode Enterprises (DHX Media Companies)

Decode Entertainment is a subsidiary of DHX Media Limited, a leading international producer of television programming and interactive content with an emphasis on children, family and youth markets. Decode Enterprises, is the distribution subsidiary of DHX Media Limited. It handles programme sales for third party producers and for DHX subsidiaries DECODE Entertainment, Halifax Film and Studio B. http://www.decode‐ent.com/

Ego Film Arts

Ego Film Arts is the production company of international filmmaker and award‐winning director Atom Egoyan, director of celebrated films such as The Sweet Hereafter, Exotica, Felicia’s Journey and Sarabande. http://www.egofilmarts.com/

Ellis Entertainment Corporation

Ellis Entertainment is a leading international television producer and distributor, with over 40 years history of supplying the global marketplace with quality entertainment and factual programming. Ellis Releasing is the distribution division and Ellis Vision is its production subsidiary. http://www.ellisent.com/

Epitome Pictures Incorporated

For the past 25 years, and related companies have produced high‐ quality dramatic programming that is distinctly Canadian. Epitome’s catalogue includes Canada’s first prime‐time soap opera, Riverdale, as well as the youth drama and the critically acclaimed : The Next Generation. Epitome has been awarded multiple distinctions for its contributions to the television industry, including two International Emmy Awards, 16 , and two Prix Jeunesses. http://www.epitomepictures.com/

5 CANADIAN CLAIMANT PROFILES 2004 – 2005

Filmline International

Founded in 1984 and solely owned by Nicolas Clermont since the early 1990’s, Filmline International soon became one of the leaders in production and co‐production in Canada, producing an impressive slate of features, movies of the week, mini and TV‐series. In September 1996, Filmline International became a wholly owned subsidiary of Behaviour Communications Incorporated, a Montreal‐based multi‐media public company.

Filmoption International

In business for now 30 years, Filmoption International is specialized in television distribution. An importer and exporter of programs its catalogue features titles ranging from feature films, drama series, children’s fare as well as all genres of documentaries, series and one‐offs. http://www.filmoption.com/

Fireworks Entertainment

Fireworks Entertainment was founded by Jay Firestone in 1996, to produce, distribute and finance television shows and feature films. It produced a diversified range of programming, with the dominant category of production being dramatic series. Some of the company’s productions include: Nikita, Robocop, Mutant X, and Relic Hunter. http://www.contentfilm.com/

Force Four Entertainment Incorporated/ Force Four Productions Limited

For over twenty years, Force Four Entertainment has been creating high quality, award‐winning television in all genres, from documentary and factual entertainment to scripted dramas and comedy. It has produced more than three hundred hours of television, earning accolades on the national and international stage. These awards include the prestigious Peabody Award for "Significant and Meritorious Achievement in Broadcasting." http://www.forcefour.com/

GAÉA Films Incorporated

GAÉA, (formerly Communications Claude Heroux Plus Incorporated) is an independent production and distribution company initially known for films and television series, including Lance et Compte. It has diversified its production slate, producing documentaries, dramas, magazine and variety programs for domestic television services and clients around the world.

6 CANADIAN CLAIMANT PROFILES 2004 – 2005

Galafilm Incorporated

For over 15 years, Galafilm has been at the forefront of independent film and television production. Its catalogue boasts over 200 hours of award winning and commercially successful entertainment content that aim to educate and entertain worldwide audiences. Its diverse slate includes documentaries, youth programs, television dramas and feature films. It has been a hit with the kids since its first foray into children’s programming; the award winning Tale of Teeka. Galafilm also produced four seasons of the Canada/UK co‐production and international hit The Worst Witch. Current youth programs include the highly popular 15/Love, co‐produced with France’s Marathon International and Fungus the Bogeyman, produced with production partner Indie Kids based in the UK. http://www.galafilm.com/

IMX Communications Incorporated

In 1973, Christopher Zimmer went to Halifax on a whim, and ended up staying for good. His career in television, advertising and film production had taken him to New York and LA, but he felt an instant affinity for Canada's East Coast and its lifestyle. As a result, in 1985, IMX communications emerged on the film scene. From the beginning Zimmer's main goal was feature film production. He has produced several award winning films. IMX also made a successful foray into animation, completing production on , a 16‐part series based on the award‐winning comic strip by Lynn Johnston. http://www.imxcommunications.com/

Infinity Films Entertainment Group Limited

Infinity Films covers the spectrum from features and documentaries to television comedy, drama and variety, but whatever form a production may take, they are first and foremost storytellers. Infinity is a writers' company, always beginning with a singular dedication to compelling scripts then following through with the vision of outstanding directors, cinematographers, designers, and editors to produce the high‐ quality entertainment for which they have become renowned. http://www.infinityfilms.ca/

Insight Production Company Limited

Insight headed by John Brunton & Barbara Bowlby has become an industry leader in the creative development, financing and production of highly rated television programs in every genre. Since 1979, Insight has created thousands of hours of groundbreaking television that continue to be broadcast over major networks worldwide. Insight Productions is recognized for developing a Canadian "star system" through television programs and specials that showcase and celebrate Canadian talent. is an example of new talent discovered by Insight in It's Only Rock n' Roll. Insight produces Canadian Idol, Canada's home‐grown version of the hugely successful international format. http://www.insighttv.com/

7 CANADIAN CLAIMANT PROFILES 2004 – 2005

Just For Laughs/Juste pour rire

At Just For Laughs, they take humour seriously. The Just For Laughs Festival has become a world‐renowned entertainment landmark, recognized for the quality of its content and the professionalism of its staff. Just For Laughs also produces award‐ winning TV shows, which have been broadcast in 140 countries and carried by 95 airlines worldwide, an unprecedented success, reaching millions of viewers across the globe. The gags series has become the number 1 comedy show in the world. http://www.hahaha.com/

King Motion Picture Corporation

King Motion Picture Corporation is the creator and producer of the series This Living World and founder of This Living World Nature Trust. Its mission, by way of the television series, is to create, develop and distribute quality programs that meet the needs and expectations of its patrons, sponsors, broadcasters and viewers. King's ultimate goal is to foster and promote a respect for public awareness, appreciation and understanding of the natural world and of all living things that share its wonder. http://www.thislivingworld.com/

Knight Enterprises

Knight Enterprises is a full service, independent production company. It is a proven performer, delivering internationally successful, high quality and incredibly entertaining lifestyle programming. The company is best known for its incredibly entertaining and mouth watering food television series including ‐ "The Great Canadian Food Show", "Table d'Hote", "Cook Like a Chef", "Licence to Grill", "Junk Brothers" as well as the latest project "This Food That Wine”. Knight Worldwide Media Company is its wholly owned distribution arm. http://knight‐tv.com/

Maple Pictures Corporation

Maple Pictures Corp. is a film company involved in the acquisition, production, and distribution of filmed entertainment. The company showcases a range of motion pictures, television programming, and home entertainment. Maple distributes all Lions Gate film and TV titles, as well as produces and distributes other filmed entertainment in Canada. The company was founded in 2005 and is based in Toronto, Canada. http://www.maplepictures.com/

Media Headquarters Film & Television Incorporated

Media Headquarters produces an exciting range of high‐quality television programming and films. From entertaining reality shows and vibrant dramatic programming, Media Headquarters continues to develop a global reputation for creativity, quality and popularity. http://www.mediahqs.net/

8 CANADIAN CLAIMANT PROFILES 2004 – 2005

Microtainment Plus Production Incorporated/Docutainment Plus Production

DocuTainment, headquartered in Toronto Canada, is a full‐service television and film production company focusing exclusively on factual entertainment. Its founder Garry Blye has produced over 2,000 hours of programming seen in over 80 countries. DocuTainment produces award‐winning series and specials in all genres. A&E, TLC, CBC, BBC, Discovery, Discovery Health, Life Network, Canal+ and a host of other major broadcasters world‐wide carry DocuTainment programming thanks to the company's widely experienced in‐house team of researchers, writers, editors and producers. http://www.microtainment.com/

Minds Eye Holdings Incorporated

Established in 1986, Minds Eye has created film and television product from its home base in , Canada that has been internationally recognized for its superior quality. This independent production company is a full service motion picture entity; including departments of development, production and post‐ production, and its distribution arm Minds Eye International Incorporated. http://www.mindseyepictures.com/

Muse Entertainment Enterprises

Muse is a leading independent feature film and television producer known for well‐ crafted, high‐quality productions. Muse’s most recent productions include the comedy feature The Deal starring William H. Macy and Meg Ryan, and the television series Durham County. Since its founding in 1998, Muse has produced, co‐produced and provided production services on more than 100 theatrical features, TV movies, mini‐series and series. Among its many award‐winning productions are the mini‐series and Answered by Fire, the TV series This is Wonderland and Tales from the Neverending Story and the TV films The Wind in the Willows and The Many Trials of One Jane Doe. The company’s head office and its Quebec production centre are based in Montreal. Muse also maintains development and production operations in Toronto, Vancouver and . http://www.muse.ca/

Nelvana Limited

Nelvana, a Corus Entertainment company, is one of the world's leading international producers and distributors of children's animation and related products. For over 30 years, it has produced over 100 major television series, specials and movies, which are available in over 150 countries around the world. The company’s growing library includes over 2,300 half hour episodes. Along with creating great shows, Nelvana works with its partners to develop merchandise, publishing, music, interactive and home video products that add to children's lives. http://www.nelvana.com/

9 CANADIAN CLAIMANT PROFILES 2004 – 2005

Norflicks Productions Limited

Norflicks has been a successful independent Canadian television production company since its incorporation in 1985. Led by its president and founder, Richard Nielsen, Norflicks earned a reputation for creating high quality, entertaining television. Norflicks met success with feature films, comedy series, as well as war documentaries. The company also made its mark in the world of religious programming and became widely known for making programs that bring Canadian history to life. http://www.norflicks.com/

Novem Communications Incorporated

Under the direction of Véronique Cloutier, Novem combines four centres of activity: television production, shows, films and publishing. Its versatility and dynamism make this independent company an important contributor within the Quebec cultural industry. http://www.novem.biz/

Omni Film Productions Limited/Water Street Pictures

For 29 years Vancouver based Omni has produced quality programming with integrity and a passion for storytelling. It is one of Canada’s longest established television and film production companies. Omni develops, finances and produces dramatic, factual and lifestyle series, documentaries and children's programming for the domestic and international market. Together with sister companies Water Street Pictures and Water Street Releasing, Omni Film Productions Limited is a complete film and television production and distribution entity with a steadily growing catalogue of exceptional programming. http://www.omnifilm.com/

Paradigm Pictures Corporation

The film, video and multi‐media production company Paradigm Pictures Corporation was founded in 1997. The principals are award‐winning producers/directors/writers, Marrin Canell and Ted Remerowski. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's premier documentary strand Witness has commissioned a number of documentaries including Security Threat, a portrait of a post‐September 11th society; Diet Wars, a look inside the multi‐million dollar diet industry; Dying to Win, an expose of drugs in sport, which was nominated for a Monte Carlo Television Award; Lost and Found, a quirky look at Lost and Found departments around the world; Quints & Quads: A New Baby Boom, a look into the growing number of multiple births; No Place to Hide: Big Brother and No Place to Hide: Little Brothers, a prescient and controversial two part series on privacy.

10 CANADIAN CLAIMANT PROFILES 2004 – 2005

Peach Arch Entertainment

Peace Arch Entertainment produces and acquires feature films, television and home entertainment content for distribution to worldwide markets. It owns one of the largest libraries of top quality independent feature films in the world, featuring more than 2,000 classic and contemporary titles. Peach Arch Television produces and acquires, series, mini‐series, movies of the week, lifestyle programming, and documentaries. http://www.peacearch.com/

Portfolio Entertainment Incorporated

Founded in 1991, Toronto‐based Portfolio Entertainment is one of Canada’s leading independent producers and distributors of bold, award‐winning television programs for kids, tweens, teens and adults including the animated comedy Carl2 that follows the day‐to‐day antics of a teenage slacker and his too perfect DNA double, and RoboRoach, a series that elevates a lowly cockroach to super hero status. Portfolio Entertainment’s distribution division has gained access to some of the world’s most established broadcasters as well as emerging new players offering an ambitious catalogue that consists of more than 1,300 episodes of programming. http://www.portfolioentertainment.com/

Productions Avanti Ciné Vidéo Incorporated

Creates and develops concepts and produces variety specials and series for broadcasters and specialty services. Avanti Ciné Vidéo obtains the rights to international productions to adapt them for the Quebec market. It has also had great success licensing concept rights to its own popular production Un gars, une fille. This was the first Quebecois television program to be adapted for broadcast in the United States. The company also develops films and has established partnerships with the animation company, Sardine Productions and “edutainment” creator, Kutoka Interactive.

Productions Pixcom/Pixcom International

Pixcom Productions has been active in the television production market since 1987. It is a private communications holding company based in Montreal. Pixcom produces shows and series that cover a range of genres: documentaries, public affairs, cultural magazines, variety shows, practical/how to magazines, drama series, game shows, television adaptations of theatre, and children’s shows. It also offers a wide range of services in interactive production, corporate communications, national and international distribution, television engineering and technical services. http://www.pixcom.com/

11 CANADIAN CLAIMANT PROFILES 2004 – 2005

Productions Point de Mire Incorporated

Point de mire is a Montreal based producer of dramas, factual programming, quiz shows, magazines, documentaries and variety specials. PDM was founded in 1992. Its productions have aired on both public and private broadcasters.

Productions Vendome II Incorporated

Vendôme Télévision is a TV production company founded in 1995 by André Dubois. Best known for comedy series, it has also made successful and a satirical mini‐ series. Recent productions include documentaries for public broadcasters and specialty services. Without abandoning comedy, the company is planning further diversification in drama and documentary series.

Productions Vidéofilms Limited

Production house created in 1972 by Robert Ménard, a producer and director with more than 15 feature films and eight television series.

Productions Zone3 Incorporated

Zone3 is a solidly established Quebec company whose creative and skills are focused in three main areas of production: television, live entertainment and recordings. The Zone3 team is a remarkable synergy of talent and experience; in all, about 500 permanent employees and freelancers work on the company’s impressive list of projects. http://www.zone3.ca/

Protocol Entertainment Incorporated

Protocol Entertainment, Incorporated originally founded in 1993 is one of Canada’s most celebrated producers of popular and critically‐acclaimed children’s entertainment television programming. The company is recognized worldwide for producing high quality, audience and award‐winning series for kids and families based on best‐selling book properties. The producer of the smash hits Goosebumps™, Animorphs™, Dear America™ and The Saddle Club™ television series, Protocol Entertainment, Incorporated is based in Toronto. http://www.protocolent.com/

Radical Sheep Production Incorporated

With over 300 episodes of award‐winning television and successful licensing programs, Radical Sheep has grown to be one of the most highly acclaimed children's television producers in North America. The creation of enduring characters and stories lies at the heart of Radical's success. Perhaps Radical's greatest achievement is , an award winning series for pre‐schoolers. Among its credits, Radical Sheep has also executive produced four seasons of the hilarious and quirky adult comedy series Puppets Who Kill. http://www.radsheep.com/

12 CANADIAN CLAIMANT PROFILES 2004 – 2005

Raincoast Storylines Limited

Raincoast Storylines Limited of Halfmoon Bay on ’s Sunshine Coast was launched in January 1994 by Bette Thompson. The company produces (and co‐produces) documentaries. Production credits include: The 13th Mission and Asteroid: The Doomsday Rock, The Life & Times of , The Parkinson’s Enigma, Captured , Nellie McClung: The Sculpting of Angels, Stopping Traffik: The War Against the War on Drugs , The Gene Squad , Frontier to First Class: Max Ward of Wardair, and Mystics, Mechanics & Mindbombs.

Rhombus Media Incorporated

Rhombus Media was formed in 1979 by Barbara Willis Sweete, Niv Fichman and Larry Weinstein. The have since produced, co‐produced and directed close to two hundred films and television specials including: The Red Violin, Beethoven’s Hair, Elizabeth Rex, Thirty‐two Short Films about and “Yo Yo Ma” inspired by Bach. http://www.rhombusmedia.com/

S&S Productions Incorporated

In its third decade, S&S Productions Incorporated develops, produces and distributes well recognized, high‐quality programming for Canadian and international audiences. The company produced 15 seasons of the internationally acclaimed comedy series , and other comedy programs. S&S is also an experienced producer of factual entertainment with programs like Balance Television for Living Well, Anything I Can Do, The Gardener's Journal, and Street Eats. It has recently expanded into animation with Sons of Butcher. Additionally it has produced feature films. http://www.ssp.ca/

Shaftesbury Films Incorporated

Founded in 1987, Shaftesbury Films has established a reputation as one of Canada’s leading producers of high quality film and television programming. In 2001, The Shaftesbury Sales Company was formed and has built a strong reputation in international markets. In 2008, Shaftesbury established a Digital Media division, Smokebomb Entertainment for the development of original multiplatform digital content. http://www.shaftesbury.ca/

13 CANADIAN CLAIMANT PROFILES 2004 – 2005

Soapbox Productions

Soapbox Productions was formed in January 1990 from a partnership of Pat Ferns and Nick Orchard. Both brought to Soapbox an extensive background in drama and TV series production. Nick Orchard acquired sole ownership of the company in 1993. The company has expanded significantly in the last few years and diversified its output, branching from drama to comedy, documentary, music, children’s and reality series., and recent productions include “O.Com; Cybersex Addiction” for the CBC’s Passionate Eye, two “New Beachcombers” MOWs for the CBC, “Shakin’ All Over”, a 3‐part history of Canadian rock for CBC, two seasons of “Head’s Up!” a children’s series for TVO, a 3‐hour history of the comedy group Second City for CBC and “On Screen”, six documentaries for CHUM/Bravo. http://www.soapboxproductions.ca/

Sound Venture Productions

Originally formed in 1980, Sound Venture Productions started as one of the first radio commercial and audio production companies in Ottawa. With a reputation for innovation and creativity, Sound Venture was honoured with prestigious awards from around the world, proving that high quality production was possible in the Ottawa region. http://www.soundventure.com/

Sphère Média Incorporated

Headquartered in the Montreal area. Sphère Média Plus is a major player on the television landscape, with over 350 viewing hours produced and broadcast during prime time. Seeking ever‐higher standards of excellence, and motivated by the desire to surpass its previous achievements in the production field, Sphère Média Plus specializes in the creation of dramatic TV series. http://www.spheremedia.ca/

Studio B Productions Incorporated

In 1988, Chris Bartleman and Blair Peters formed Studio B, starting with animated shorts, Sesame Streets shorts, layout and storyboard work. In 2000, they launched the original series “What About” in Canada and Germany. In 2001, Studio B was voted one of KidScreen’s “Kids Entertainment Elite”. Named one of the 10 most innovative and creative studios in the world by Television Business International Magazine. http://www.studiobproductions.com/

14 CANADIAN CLAIMANT PROFILES 2004 – 2005

Sullivan Entertainment Group Incorporated

Sullivan and its subsidiaries develop, produce and distribute high‐quality series, mini‐series and movies for television and international release. A large degree of Sullivan's library is family‐oriented, but it also owns and controls a wide array of films in numerous genres. The company is one of the leading producers of exportable Canadian television programming, with more than 20 years of successful operations. Sullivan's library consists of 600 half‐hour equivalents of programming. http://www.sullivanmovies.com/

Summerhill Entertainment Incorporated

Summerhill is a Toronto based full service production company, which has been producing high‐quality programming such as documentaries, series, feature films, specials and more, for global and domestic markets for over 25 years.

The National Film Board of Canada

Canada’s public film producer and distributor, The National Film Board of Canada (NFB) provides the country and world with a unique perspective. For over 65 years, it has been breaking ground in socially engaged documentary, auteur animation, alternative drama and more. Along the way, it has crafted over 12,000 productions and received more than 5000 awards, including 12 Oscars®. The NFB has played a key role in virtually every major advancement in documentary filmmaking. It was there at the start of the cinéma vérité revolution, at the birth of giant‐screen IMAX format as well as computer animation. Now it is working to redefine filmmaking in the cross‐platform universe – while continuing to give its creators the resources and support to fully develop their visions. http://www.nfb.ca/

The Ontario Educational Communications Authority

TV Ontario (TVO), founded in 1970 as Ontario’s educational television broadcaster, has grown to receive international acclaim. It is appreciated worldwide as a producer‐ distributor of superb programming for both general broadcast and in‐school use. Valued the world over, TVO programs have won more than 800 international awards for programming excellence. http://www.tvo.org/

Thunder Bay Electronics Limited

Thunder Bay Electronics operates CKPR‐TV, a CBC affiliate TV station and CHFD‐TV, a CTV affiliate, in Thunder Bay, Ontario. CKPR‐TV was launched in 1954 and CHFD in 1972. The company is 100% locally owned and operated.

15 CANADIAN CLAIMANT PROFILES 2004 – 2005

TQS

“The black sheep of television” is a Canadian French‐language privately‐owned television network. It launched in 1986, with network‐owned stations and affiliates existing throughout Quebec. It can also be received in other parts of Canada by satellite or cable. The network is currently owned and operated by Remstar Corporation. http://www.tqs.ca/

TVA Group Incorporated

TVA, founded in 1960 under the name Corporation Télé‐Métropole incorporated, is an integrated communications company with operations in broadcasting, the production of audiovisual content, magazine publishing, editing and the merchandising of various products. TVA is the largest private‐sector producer and broadcaster of French‐language entertainment, news and public affairs programming in North America. http://tva.canoe.ca/

Vivavision Incorporated

Vivavision Incorporated (formerly Vivaclic Incorporated) is a Canadian company that produces quality television and film programming primarily for children and families. A highly accomplished force within the Quebec market since 1989, Vivavision is growing, becoming among the leading national producers within their specialized markets, and expanding into new world‐markets through co‐productions with international partners. http://www.vivavision.ca/

WestWind Pictures Limited

Westwind Pictures is an independent television production company with programs airing in over 80 countries around the world. The company is currently involved in scripted television series, documentaries, lifestyle programming and feature films. Its diverse product line reflects a commitment to produce imaginative, entertaining, and insightful programming. WestWind Pictures' show, Little Mosque on the Prairie, features the antics of a small Muslim community in the fictional prairie town of Mercy. The series takes an unabashedly comedic look at the congregation of a rural mosque and their attempt to live in harmony with each other, and with the often skeptical, even downright suspicious residents of their little town. http://home.westwindpictures.com/

16

CANADIAN CLAIM GROUP MEMBERS SELECTION OF PROPERTIES LICENSED TO U.S. TV SERVICES WITHIN THE YEARS 2004‐2005

CLAIMANT NAME PRODUCTION CLIENT NAME RIGHTS Alcina Pictures Beso Nocturno (Night Kiss) Sundance Channel Cable TV

Alliance Atlantis ABC Family Cable TV

Anaid Productions Inc. Mentors ‐ Seasons 1, 2, 3 Discovery Cable TV Taking It Off ‐ Season III Life Balance Media Non‐Standard Television X Weighted ‐ Season II & III Discovery Health Non‐Standard Television

Breakthrough Films & Television Kenny vs. Spenny Game Show Network Cable TV Atomic Betty Cable TV Paradise Falls Here!TV Cable TV

CCI Entertainment Harry and His Bucket of Dinosaurs Cartoon Network Cable TV

CinéGroupe Corporation / Mega Babies FOX Family Channel Cable TV 9151‐4190 Québec Inc. Sagwa; The Chinese Siamese Cat PBS Free TV (public) ‐ season 1 Sci‐fi Cable & Satelitte What's With Andy Cable TV

Cirque du Soleil Inc. Alegría Bravo Cable & Satellite Cirque Réinventé Bravo Cable & Satellite Dralion Bravo Cable & Satellite Fire Witin (13 episodes) Bravo Cable & Satellite In the Heart of Dralion Bravo Cable & Satellite La Nouba Bravo Cable & Satellite Lovesick Bravo Cable & Satellite The Making of an Angel Bravo Cable & Satellite Nouvelle Experience Bravo Cable & Satellite Run Before you Fly Bravo Cable & Satellite

Exhibit CDN‐1‐D

Page 1 of 6

CANADIAN CLAIM GROUP MEMBERS SELECTION OF PROPERTIES LICENSED TO U.S. TV SERVICES WITHIN THE YEARS 2004‐2005

CLAIMANT NAME PRODUCTION CLIENT NAME RIGHTS

Cirque du Soleil Inc. Saltimbanco Bravo Cable & Satellite Midnight Sun Bravo Cable & Satellite Solstrom (13 episodes) Bravo Cable & Satellite Varekai Bravo Cable & Satellite

Cookie Jar Entertainment Address Unknown Odyssey, A Hallmark and Henson Network TV ‐ Basic, TV ‐ Free, TV ‐ Pay Adventures of Paddington HBO (Home Box Office) TV ‐ Basic, TV ‐ Free, TV ‐ Pay Alan & Naomi Odyssey, A Hallmark and Henson Network TV ‐ Basic, TV ‐ Free, TV ‐ Pay Crackers Bela Broadcasting LLC TV ‐ Free Breaking Free Odyssey, A Hallmark and Henson Network TV ‐ Basic, TV ‐ Free, TV ‐ Pay Busy World of Richard Scarry Fuji Television Network Live Performance, TV, Video Busy World of Richard Scarry Herald‐Standard Television (HSTV) TV ‐ Basic Busy World of Richard Scarry Bela Broadcasting LLC TV ‐ Free City Mouse and the Country Mouse HBO (Home Box Office) TV ‐ Basic, TV ‐ Free, TV ‐ Pay City Mouse and the Country Mouse Bela Broadcasting LLC TV ‐ Free City Mouse and the Country Mouse Indicom International TV ‐ Basic Coyote Odyssey, A Hallmark and Henson Network TV ‐ Basic, TV ‐ Free, TV ‐ Pay Telefutura Network, Inc. TV, TV‐Basic, TV ‐ Free, TV ‐ Pay, VOD Just Like Dad Odyssey, A Hallmark and Henson Network TV ‐ Basic, TV ‐ Free, TV ‐ Pay Little Lulu Show (The) HBO (Home Box Office) TV ‐ Basic, TV ‐ Free, TV ‐ Pay Story TV ‐ Basic Paper Brigade (The) Odyssey, A Hallmark and Henson Network TV ‐ Basic, TV ‐ Free, TV ‐ Pay Production Ltd. TV ‐ Pay Per View, Video, VOD Undercover Kid Odyssey, A Hallmark and Henson Network TV ‐ Basic, TV ‐ Free, TV ‐ Pay Wimzie’s House Bela Broadcasting LLC TV ‐ Free Wind runner Odyssey, A Hallmark and Henson Network TV ‐ Basic, TV ‐ Free, TV ‐ Pay Wish Upon a Star Odyssey, A Hallmark and Henson Network TV ‐ Basic, TV ‐ Free, TV ‐ Pay Wonderful Wizard of Oz Bela Broadcasting LLC TV ‐ Free

CTV Globlemedia Inc.. WGN TV ‐ Free

Page 2 of 6

CANADIAN CLAIM GROUP MEMBERS SELECTION OF PROPERTIES LICENSED TO U.S. TV SERVICES WITHIN THE YEARS 2004‐2005

CLAIMANT NAME PRODUCTION CLIENT NAME RIGHTS

Ellis Entertainment Corp. Profiles Of Nature Specials (Xi) Discovery Channel Standard & Non‐Standard television rights Profiles Of Nature Specials (Xii) Planet / HD Theatre Standard & Non‐Standard television rights The Baby Human Discovery Health US Standard & Non‐Standard television rights Tank Overhaul Military Channel Standard & Non‐Standard television rights Beastly Countdown Animal Planet Standard & Non‐Standard television rights Craftiest Animals Discovery Channel Standard & Non‐Standard television rights Day Of The Groundhog Discovery Channel Standard & Non‐Standard television rights Leave It To The Real Beaver Discovery Channel Standard & Non‐Standard television rights Mother Nature Ii Animal Planet/TLC Standard & Non‐Standard television rights Sideshow Stars: The True Story Discover Health US Standard & Non‐Standard television rights Divine Restoration TVOne Standard & Non‐Standard television rights The Lost Gods Smithsonian Network Standard & Non‐Standard television rights Something About Mary Magdalene AETN ‐ History Channel US Standard & Non‐Standard television rights

Epitome Pictures Degrassi N Television

Force Four Entertainment Inc. Making It Big 1 Life / Oxgen Network Free TV (private)

Kensington Communications Inc. 72 Hours : True Crime Discovery Communications Non‐Standard Television Exhibit A: Secrets of Forensic ScienceDiscovery Communications Non‐Standard Television Exhibit A : Secrets of Forensic Scienc Tech TV Non‐Standard TV The Sacred Balance (Eps 1 ‐ 4) PBS Free TV (public) Diamond Road (Eps 1 ‐ 3) Discovery Communications Non‐Standard Television

Page 3 of 6

CANADIAN CLAIM GROUP MEMBERS SELECTION OF PROPERTIES LICENSED TO U.S. TV SERVICES WITHIN THE YEARS 2004‐2005

CLAIMANT NAME PRODUCTION CLIENT NAME RIGHTS

Knight Enterprises Inc. License To Grill Discovery Communications Cable and Sat Junk Brothers Scripps Networks (HGTV) Cable and Sat This Food That Wine American Life TV Cable and Sat Dig In! Scripps Networks (HGTV) Cable and Sat

Minds Eye Entertainment Ltd. Celebrity Gravesites The Travel Channel Cable TV, non‐theatrical, home video Celebrity Secrets The Travel Channel Cable TV, non‐theatrical, home video MythQuest PBS Cable TV, home video Incredible Story Studio Discovery Kids Cable TV Just Cause Paxson Entertainment All media

Muse Entertainment Human Trafficking Lifetime Television Cable TV Black Widower Lifetime Television Cable TV

National Film Board of Canada Me And The Mosque ABC News Broadcast conventional Company Of Strangers, The First Run Features‐Four Way Features All rights, all markets Being Caribou Free Speech TV/Public Communicators Inc. Broadcast cable & satellite Origins Of Human Aggression, The Free Speech TV/Public Communicators Inc. Broadcast cable & satellite Ties That Bind, The Free Speech TV/Public Communicators Inc. Broadcast cable & satellite Under One Sky: Arab Women In … Free Speech TV/Public Communicators Inc. Broadcast cable & satellite Diggers Of The Deeps ITVS Broadcast conventional John And Michael ITVS Broadcast conventional Leaving The KCTS TV Broadcast conventional Sleeping Tigers KCTS TV Broadcast conventional Ties That Bind, The KCTS TV Broadcast conventional Ryan KQED Channel 9 Broadcast conventional Strange Invaders KQED Channel 9 Broadcast conventional How Wings Are Attached To The… Southwest Alternate Media Project Broadcast conventional Strings‐Cordes Southwest Alternate Media Project Broadcast conventional No More Tears Sister The American Documentary Broadcast conventional

National Film Board of Canada Being Caribou WMVS Milwaukee Public & Educational TV Broadcast conventional Maroon ‐ On The Trail Of Creole… WMVS Milwaukee Public & Educational TV Broadcast conventional My Son Shall Be Armenian WMVS Milwaukee Public & Educational TV Broadcast conventional

Page 4 of 6

CANADIAN CLAIM GROUP MEMBERS SELECTION OF PROPERTIES LICENSED TO U.S. TV SERVICES WITHIN THE YEARS 2004‐2005

CLAIMANT NAME PRODUCTION CLIENT NAME RIGHTS

National Film Board of Canada Silente Messengers WMVS Milwaukee Public & Educational TV Broadcast conventional When Hockey Came To Belfast WMVS Milwaukee Public & Educational TV Broadcast conventional Company Of Strangers, The First Run Features‐Four Way Features All rights, all markets Criminal Acts‐Inside Prison, The… KCTS TV Broadcast conventional From Haling Poihnt KCTS TV Broadcast conventional Magical Life Of Long Tack Sam, The KCTS TV Broadcast conventional Why Thee Wed KCTS TV Broadcast conventional Winter Wonderland: The Making… MHZ Networks Broadcast conventional & PayTV Erlking, The Southwest Alternate Media Project Broadcast conventional Loon Dreaming Southwest Alternate Media Project Broadcast conventional Ramoneurs Cerebraux ‐ The Bra… Southwest Alternate Media Project Broadcast conventional Ryan Southwest Alternate Media Project Broadcast conventional Stiltwalkers Southwest Alternate Media Project Broadcast conventional How Do They? Collection V‐ME Media Inc.. Broadcast conventional+ cable Science Please ‐ Volume 1V‐ME Media Inc.. Broadcast conventional+ cable What Is…? (6 Items) V‐ME Media Inc.. Broadcast conventional+ cable Bombay Calling WMVS Milwaukee Public & Educational TV Broadcast conventional Fight For True Farming, The WMVS Milwaukee Public & Educational TV Broadcast conventional Journey of Lesra Martin, The WMVS Milwaukee Public & Educational TV Broadcast conventional Mike Birch: Riding with the Wind WMVS Milwaukee Public & Educational TV Broadcast conventional Mr. Mergler's Gift WMVS Milwaukee Public & Educational TV Broadcast conventional Accordéon/accordéon WTTW/Chicago Broadcast conventional+ cable C Note WTTW/Chicago Broadcast conventional+ cable Glove Story WTTW/Chicago Broadcast conventional+ cable Ryan WTTW/Chicago Broadcast conventional+ cable Street Musique WTTW/Chicago Broadcast conventional+ cable Walking WTTW/Chicago Broadcast conventional+ cable Walking Catfish Blues WTTW/Chicago Broadcast conventional+ cable Moonman WTTW/Chicago Broadcast conventional+ cable

Nelvana Grossology Discovery Kids Cable TV Pippi Longstocking Feature Disney Channel USA Cable TV Handy Manny Disney Channel USA Cable TV Disney Channel USA Cable TV

Page 5 of 6

CANADIAN CLAIM GROUP MEMBERS SELECTION OF PROPERTIES LICENSED TO U.S. TV SERVICES WITHIN THE YEARS 2004‐2005

CLAIMANT NAME PRODUCTION CLIENT NAME RIGHTS

Nelvana Babar NBC TV/ Free TV/Cable TV Bob & Margaret Showtime Cable TV Jake and The Kid Showtime Cable TV Rescue Heroes WB Kids Cable TV Jacob Two Two NBC Universal Cable TV Seven Little Monsters PBS Free TV

Omni Film Productions Ltd. Edgemont ABC Family Channel Cable TV The Disappearance of the PX‐15 The Science Channel (USA) Cable TV Shimmy Access / Discovery Health U.S. Cable TV

Peace Arch Entertainment Animal Miracles Animal Planet (USA) Cable TV Our Fathers Showtime / Pay Television Network Cable TV

Portfolio Entertainment Stolen Miracle Lifetime Cable TV

Radical Sheep Big Comfy Couch Public TV Free TV (public)

S&S Productions Inc. The Red Green Show PBS Free TV (public) History Bites VTV Cable & Satelitte

Shaftesbury Films Inc. A Colder Kind of Death Lifetime Cable TV Deadly Appearances Lifetime Cable TV Murder at the Mendel Lifetime Cable TV Strange Days at Blake Holsey High Discovery Kids Cable TV Wandering Souls Murders Lifetime Cable TV

Studio B Cable TV Something Else Nickelodeon Cable TV

Page 6 of 6

Canadian Claimant Members 2004‐2006 International Awards

2006 Awards

Air Farce Productions and The Chairman Award

Muse Entertainment This is Wonderland Monte‐Carlo Television Festival Nominee ‐ Drama Series

Omni Film Productions Limited Make Some Noise The Silver Chris

Activism Is Everywhere (Make Some Noise) The Prize Youth Award

2005 Awards

Alcina Pictures Kardia Hamptons International Film Festival Winner of the Alfred P. Sloan Film Prize in Science and October 2005

Canadian Feature Film Production The Dark Hours Dead By Dawn Film Festival (Scotland) Audience Award ‐ Best Feature

Phoenix International Horror & Sci Fi Film Festival Best Horror Feature, Best Director, Best Screenplay, Best Actor

Fangoria Chainsaw Awards Nominated for Best Film “Best for Less”

Exhibit CDN‐1‐E 1

Canadian Claimant Members 2004‐2006 International Awards

2005 Awards (continued)

Ellis Entertainment Corporation The Baby Human 2: To Belong Columbus International Film and Video Festival The Chris Award

The Baby Human, Series 2 Worldfest‐Houston International Film Festival Platinum Remi ‐ Science and Research

The Baby Human, Series 2 TVfest, The Chicago International Television Competition Gold Plaque ‐ Documentary: Science/Nature

The Baby Human, Series 2 New York Festivals: TV Programming and Promotion Bronze Medal Award ‐ Science and Technology

Divine Restoration Columbus International Film and Video Festival Bronze Plaque

Day of the Groundhog Worldfest‐Houston International Film Festival Platinum Remi ‐ Nature and Wildlife

Craftiest Animals: Raccoons TVfest, The Chicago International Television Competition Gold Plaque ‐ Documentary: Science/Nature

Galafilm Incorporated Hunt For Justice: The Louise Arbour Story Orinda Film Festival Winner ‐ Best TV Movie Winner ‐ Audience Award‐Overall Favorite Winner ‐ Audience Award‐Favorite Feature

In Search Of Sleep 53rd Columbus International Film & Video Festival Honorable Mention for Physical Health: Narrative or fictional docu‐drama concerning physical health or medicine topics

2

Canadian Claimant Members 2004‐2006 International Awards

2005 Awards (continued)

Galafilm Incorporated Fungus The Bogeyman Pact Indie Award Winner ‐ Best Children's

British Academy Children's Film & Television Awards Winner ‐ Best Children's

The Blue Butterfly Young Artist Awards Nominated for Best International Feature Film Nominated ‐ Best Performance in an International Feature Film (Leading Young Performance)

Infinity Films Race of the Century: Ben Johnson, Drugs and the Quest for Gold New York Festivals International Film and Video Awards Gold Medal ‐documentary category billed as recognizing "The World's Best Work." January 2005

Insight Productions Hatching, Matching & Dispatching Chris Awards Honorable Mention Certificate ‐ Short Subject Comedy

Falcon Beach Hugo Awards Certificate of Merit ‐ Feature Length Telefilm ‐ Drama

Media Headquarters The Four Seasons Mosaic Columbus International Film & Video Festival Winner ‐Chris Award

Nelvana Limited Rolie Polie Olie National Television Academy’s 32nd Annual Creative Craft Daytime Emmy Awards Awarded its 3rd Emmy Award and, 2nd for Outstanding Special Class Animated Program, May 2005

3

Canadian Claimant Members 2004‐2006 International Awards

2005 Awards (continued)

Productions Zone 3 Dans une Galaxie Près de Chez Vous Olivier Award Comedy of the Year

Moshe Safdie, The Power Of Architecture International Festival of Films on Art Best Educational Film

Soapbox Productions O.COM 38th Annual WorldFest‐Houston Platinum Award

A Beachcomber’s Christmas 2005 ‐ WorldFest‐Houston 2005 ‐ Gold Remi Award 2005 ‐ Television and Cable Production Award for Feature made for television

Sullivan Entertainment The Overlookers New York International Independent Film and Video Festival (L.A.) Best Director

2004 Awards

Amérimage‐Spectra Amelia (Opening Night) American Choreography Awards The Outstanding Choreography Award (short film)

Banff Television Festival Special Jury Award

4

Canadian Claimant Members 2004‐2006 International Awards

2004 Awards (continued)

Cinémaginaire Incorporated The Barbarian Invasions Academy Awards Best Foreign Language Film

Cannes Film Festival Best Screenplay (Denys Arcand)

CinéGroupe Corporation / 9151‐4190 Québec Incorporated Tripping The Rift The Bay Festival (Italia) Pulcinella Award, Cartoons Best TV Series for Teenagers and Adults of the Year Best Program of the Year Outstanding Non‐Fiction Program (Alternative)

Decode Entertainment The Blobheads The Alliance for Children & Television Winner of Award of Excellence, All Genres Category, Ages 3‐5

Franny's Feet The Pulcinella Award Best TV Series, Infants

Girl Stuff Boy Stuff The New York Festivals Gold Medal Winner, Youth Program

Decode Entertainment The New York Festivals Silver Medal Winner, Teen Programs

The Parents' Choice Foundation Recommended, Ages 9‐17

The Zack Files The Alliance for Children & Television Award of Excellence, All Genres Category, Ages 9‐12

5

Canadian Claimant Members 2004‐2006 International Awards

2004 Awards (continued)

Ellis Entertainment Warriors of the Worldfest‐Houston International Film Festival Bronze Award ‐ Nature and Wildlife

Profiles of Nature Specials (XI) ‐ Warriors of Yukon Worldfest‐Houston International Film Festival Bronze Award: Nature and Wildlife

The Baby Human ep.101 To Walk Worldfest‐Houston International Film Festival Bronze Award: Science and Research

The Baby Human: To Walk Worldfest‐Houston International Film Festival Bronze Award ‐ Science and Research

Fireworks Distribution/Global Television Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda I‐V Chicago International Film Festival Gold Plaque‐ Best Dramatic Series‐ For episode "Double or Nothingness" Best Dramatic Series‐ For episode "Machinery of The Mind" Special Achievement in Direction ‐ For episode "Double or Nothingness"

Worldfest Houston Platinum Award – For episodes "Double or Nothingness" and "Machinery of The Mind"

Force Four Entertainment Human Cargo Winner of Peabody Award

Galafilm Incorporated The Blue Butterfly Giffoni Film Festival 3rd place ‐ "Free to Fly" (children 9‐12)

International Film Festival For Children And Young Audience Schlingel Winner ‐ "European Children Film Prize"

International Women's Film Festival Silver Plaque ‐ 1st place ‐ "Teen‐Age Audience"

6

Canadian Claimant Members 2004‐2006 International Awards

2004 Awards (continued)

Knight Enterprises Incorporated Cook Like A Chef Gourmand World Cookbook Awards Best English Cookbook Tied to a Television Program

Minds Eye Entertainment Seven Times Lucky 6th Annual Method Fest Independent Film Festival Award Winner

Motion Picture Distribution (formerly Alliance Atlantis) Hitler: The Rise Of Evil American Society of Cinematographers Outstanding Achievement in Cinematography in Movies of the Week/Mini‐Series'/Pilot for Network or Basic Broadcast TV

The National Film Board of Canada (NFB) I Want a Dog World Festival of Animated Films Special Distinction ‐ Children's Jury Youth Jury Award ‐ Category: Animation Kids June 2004, Zagreb ‐

International Film Festival Audience Award ‐ Category: Ages 3‐6 March 2004, Cleveland – USA

International Children's Film Festival Bronze Plaque Award ‐ Category: Education & Information March 2004, New York – USA

La Cueca Sola Women Film Festival "La Mo‐Viola" 3rd Best Documentary Award October 2004, Torino ‐

7

Canadian Claimant Members 2004‐2006 International Awards

2004 Awards (continued)

The National Film Board of Canada (NFB) Crapshoot: The Gamble with Our Wastes International Film Festival Silver Plaque ‐ Category: Documentary: Science / Nature at the Television Awards Bronze Plaque ‐ Category: Science and Technology October 2005, Chicago – USA

International Film and Video Festival Second Place ‐ Category: Oceans, Water Quality & Watersheds November 2004, Columbus – USA

EarthVision Film & Video Festival October 2004, Santa Cruz – USA

Stormy Night International Children's Film Festival Audience Award (8 ‐ 14 years) March 4 to 20 2005, New York – USA

Black Nights Film Festival Award for Best Story Certificate of Excellence given by the Adult Jury Category: Animated Short film or Video November 27 to December 12 2004, Tallinn ‐ Estonia

International Children's Film Festival Special Jury Prize October 2004, Chicago ‐ USA

International Animation Festival Grand Prize ‐ Category: Animation August 2004, Hiroshima – Japan

Kinder FilmFest Special Distinction (KOFIC Prize)‐with a cash prize August 2004, Tokyo ‐ Japan

8

Canadian Claimant Members 2004‐2006 International Awards

2004 Awards (continued)

The National Film Board of Canada (NFB) Stormy Night International Cartoon & Animation Festival (SICAF) Golden Slipper ‐ Category: Animated Film ‐ with film material by KODAK August 2004, Seoul – Korea

International Film Festival for Children and Youth Spirit of Moondance Award for Best Animation Films May 30 to June 5 2004, Zlin ‐ Czech Republic

Moondance Film Festival Award for Best Children's Film ‐ with a cash prize May 2004, Boulder ‐ USA

International Animation Film Festival / International Trickfilm Festival Crystal Bear for best short film given by the Children's Jury April 2004, Stuttgart ‐ Germany

International Film Festival February 2004, – Germany

The Gift of Diabetes International Film and Video Festival Bronze Plaque ‐ Category: Physical Health Best Public Service Award November 2005, Columbus ‐ USA

The Gift of Diabetes Annual American Indian Film Festival Award of Excellence ‐ Category: Documentary Short November 2005, San Francisco – USA

House Calls International Film and Video Festival Freddie Award ‐ Category: Caregiving November 2005, Columbus – USA

International Health and Medical Media Awards ( Freddie ) November 2005, New York ‐ USA

9

Canadian Claimant Members 2004‐2006 International Awards

2004 Awards (continued)

The National Film Board of Canada (NFB) Exiles in Lotusland WorldFest ‐ International Film Festival Silver Remi Award April 2006, Houston ‐ USA

The True Story of Sawney Beane London International Animation Festival ‐ LIAF Award for Best International Programme 3 "Centaur" Prize for best animation film August 2006, London ‐ England

Message to Man Cineplex Odeon Award for Best Short Animation July 2006, St. Petersburg ‐

International Film Festival August 2005, ‐ Scotland

Westwind Pictures Youkali Hotel Festival International de Programmes Audiovisuels (FIPA) Selected for Competition Paris, France

Rose D'Or Nominated Switzerland

10

CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION 2004 and 2005

CBC TELEVISION

CBC Stations by Province* Callsigns Channel

Newfoundland St. John's CBNT 8 Prince Edward Island CBCT 13 Nova Scotia Halifax CBHT 3 CBIT 5 CBAT‐TV 4 Quebec Montreal CBMT 6 Ontario Ottawa CBOT 4 Toronto CBLT 5 Windsor CBET 9 Private Affiliated Stations Kingston CKWS‐TV 11 Peterborough CHEX‐TV 12 Thunder Bay CKPR‐TV 2 CBWT 6 Private Affiliated Stations Brandon CKX‐TV 5 Saskatchewan Regina CBKT 9 CBKST 11 CBRT 9 CBXT 5 Private Affiliated Stations CKSA‐TV 2 CHAT‐TV 6 Red Deer CKRD‐TV 6 British Columbia Vancouver CBUT 2 Private Affiliated Stations CJDC‐TV 5 CFJC‐TV 4 CHBC‐TV 2 Prince George CKPG‐TV 2 Terrace CFTK‐TV 3

Exhibit CDN‐1‐F 1 *All stations are owned and operated by CBC unless they have been identified as Private Affiliated Stations.

CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION 2004 and 2005

TÉLÉVISION DE RADIO‐CANADA

CBC Stations by Province* Callsign Channel

New Brunswick Moncton CBAFT 11 Quebec Montreal CBFT 2 Quebec CBVT 11 Private Affiliated Stations Saguenay CKTV‐TV 12 Rivière‐du‐Loup CKRT‐TV 7 Rouyn CKRN‐TV 4 Sherbrooke CKSH‐TV 9 Trois‐Rivières CKTM‐TV 13 Ontario Ottawa CBOFT 9 Manitoba Winnipeg CBWFT 3 Saskatchewan Regina CBKFT 13 Alberta Edmonton CBXFT 11 British Columbia Vancouver CBUFT 26

2 *All stations are owned and operated by CBC unless they have been identified as Private Affiliated Stations.

CBC TELEVISION SCHEDULE 2003/2004

TIME SUNDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY 6:00 AM 6:30 Get Set CBC Morning 7:00 AM For Life 7:30 Get Set For Life 8:00:AM Clifford: The Big Red Dog Rolie, Polie, Olie 8:30 Coronation Magic School Bus Arthur 9:00 AM Street The Save‐ums Mr. Dress‐up Get Set 9:30 Tiny Planets Me Too For Life 10:00 AM Poko 10:30 CBC News: Little Bear Tractor Tom 11:00 AM Sunday Franklin 11:30 12:00 PM Country Canada CBC News 12:30 Land & Sea / Moving On The Red Green Show 1:00 PM Sunday This Hours has 22 Minutes 1:30 Encore Classic Made in Canada 2:00 PM Best of Matinee 2:30 Current Affairs Canadian 3:00 PM Neverending Coronation Street Feature CBC Sport 3:30 Story Emmerdale Films Saturday 4:00 PM On the The X Road Again 4:30 It's A Living Taina The Blobheads Ace Lightning Radio Free Nutley POV Sports 5:00 PM The Nature The Simpsons 5:30 of Things Kenny vs Spenny Chilly Beach Edgemont

CCG J SC P S Exhibit CDN‐1‐G

Page 1 of 6 CBC TELEVISION SCHEDULE 2003/2004

TIME SUNDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY 6:00 PM The CBC News: Saturday Report 6:30 Wonderful Saturday Night World of 7:00 PM Disney This Hour It's A Living Has 22 Minutes Life & Times The Nature 7:30 Royal Canadian of Things On the Road Air Farce Again 8:00 PM Cirque de 72 Hours Opening Night Royal Canadian Soleil Air Farce Variety Series Just for Laughs This Hour Hockey Night 8:30 Marketplace Has 22 Minutes In Canada Specials An American 9:00 PM Da Vinci's In Canada Inquest CBC News: the fifth estate Passionate Eye The Red Green 9:30 Disclosure / Witness Show 10:00 PM Sunday Report The National 10:30 Venture

11:00 PM National 2nd Edition 11:30 Sports Zed Late 12:00 AM Night Best of Best of International Cinema Friday Night Saturday Night French Canada Britain Movie Night Canada at the Movies at the Movies

CCG J SC P S

Page 2 of 6 CBC TELEVISION SCHEDULE 2004/2005

TIME SUNDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY 6:00 AM CBC Morning 6:30 7:00 Kids' CBC Kids' CBC Slim Pig MumbleBumble Poko 7:30 8:00 Tractor Tom 8:30 Coronation Dragon Booster 9:00 Street The Doodlebops Little Bear Arthur 9:30 Franklin Dragon Tales Kids' CBC 10:00 Me Too! Magic School Bus 10:30 CBC News Mr. Dressup Clifford: The Big Red Dog 11:00 Sunday Rolie, Polie, Olie 11:30 12:00 PM Country Canada CBC News: Today CBC Sports 12:30 Land & Sea The Red Green Show Saturday 1:00 Sunday 1:30 Encore Classic Made In Canada CFL football 2:00 Matinee Canadian Drama 2:30 On The Road Again Fashion File / : Open Book Canadian 3:00 Canadian Antiques Roadshow Feature equestrian 3:30 Drama Emmerdale Films 4:00 The Nature The X 4:30 of Things Edible Incredible Dragon Booster Spynet POV Sports 5:00 The Wonderful The Simpsons cycling 5:30 World of Disney Street Cents Chilly Beach

CCG J SC P S

Page 3 of 6 CBC TELEVISION SCHEDULE 2004/2005

TIME SUNDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY

6:00 PM The Wonderful CBC News: Sat. Report 6:30 World of Disney CBC News: Canada Now Saturday Night

7:00 CBC News: Royal Canadian This Hour Has Ciao The On The Marketplace Air Farce 22 Minutes Bella Nature Road Again 7:30 CBC News: Venture Coronation Street Coronation Street Coronation Street of Things Coronation Street CBC's

8:00 The Greatest Making The Greatest Royal Canadian Hockey Night

Specials Canadian The Cut Canadian Air Farce In Canada 8:30 Opening This Hours Has (**Scheduled) 9:00 Human Cargo Show Night 22 Minutes

Prime Suspect Comedy Da Vinci's CBC News: The Red Green Show

9:30 Sex Traffic Winnipeg Comedy Fest Inquest the fifth estate Just For

Ha!fax Comedy Fest Laughs Gags

10:00 CBC News: CBC News: The National 10:30 Sunday Night 11:00 Mary Walsh: Open Book CBC News: The National 2nd Edition 11:30 Canadian Reflections Zed

12:00 AM Sports Best of Best of International Cinema Friday Night Hockey Night Late Night French Canada Britain Movie Night Canada at the Movies In Canada After Hours

** NHL Lockout:September 16, 2004 ‐ July 22, 2005 CCG J SC P S

Page 4 of 6 CBC TELEVISION SCHEDULE 2005/2006

TIME SUNDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY 6:00 AM CBC Morning 6:30 7:00 Kids' CBC Kids' CBC The Doodlebops 7:30 8:00 Little Bear Clifford: The Big Red Dog Tractor Tom 8:30 Coronation Arthur Dragon Tales 9:00 Street Franklin Kids' CBC 9:30 Mr. Dressup Dragon Booster 10:00 CBC News: Me Too! 10:30 Sunday MumbleBumble Rolie, Polie, Olie 11:00 Life and Poko 11:30 Times 12:00 PM Market CBC News: Today Youth 12:30 Place Myth Quest 1:00 Sunday Canadian Drama Life and Times 1:30 Encore Tom Stone / Emmerdale 2:00 Moving On Monday Lifestyle Fashion File Loving Spoonfuls Friday CBC Sports 2:30 Land & Sea Afternoon Lifestyle The Love of Gardening Afternoon Saturday 3:00 Mansbridge One on One Movie Royal Canadian Air Farce Movie skiing 3:30 On The Road Again This Hour Has 22 Minutes

4:00 Be The Chilly Beach / Edgemont Youth curling 4:30 Creature Youth Nerve / Street Cents 5:00 The Wonderful The Simpsons

5:30 World of Disney Just For Laughs Gags / Frasier Just For Laughs Gags figure skating

CCG J SC P S

Page 5 of 6 CBC TELEVISION SCHEDULE 2005/2006

TIME SUNDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY

6:00 PM The Wonderful CBC News: Sat. Report 6:30 World of Disney CBC News: Canada Now Saturday Night

7:00 CBC News: Royal Canadian This Hour Has Rick Mercer On The The Red Marketplace/Venture Air Farce 22 Minutes Report Road Again Green Show 7:30 Coronation Street Coronation Street Coronation Street Coronation Street Coronation Street 8:00 The Nature Antiques Royal Canadian High Impact High Impact The Tournament/ of Things/This Is Roadshow Air Farce

8:30 What It's Like Wonderland This Hours Has Hockey Night Waking Up Wally ‐ Intelligence Being Alone 22 Minutes In Canada

9:00 The Walter Gretzky Story Shania Da Vinci's the fifth The Passionate Just For Laughs/

9:30 il Duce Canadese City Hall estate Eye Winnipeg Comedy Fest

10:00 CBC News: CBC News: The National 10:30 Sunday Night 11:00 Canadian Reflections CBC News: The National 2nd Edition 11:30 Zed

12:00 AM Sports Best of Best of International Cinema Friday Night Late Night French Canada Britain Movie Night Canada at the Movies

CCG J SC P S

Page 6 of 6

International Awards 2004 ‐ 2006 CBC Television Network

2006 Awards

British Broadcast Awards Sex Traffic Best One‐Off Drama

Cairo International Film Festival for Children The Peace Tree Silver Cairo for Short film Children's International Jury Prize

Columbus International Film & Video Festival The Velvet Devil (Opening Night) The Silver Chris

Appasionata: The Extraordinary Life and Music of Sonia Eckhardt‐Gramatte (Opening Night) The Silver Chris

Gabriel Awards Evergreen Wishes Presents Dancing Day (CBC Ottawa) Gabriel Award ‐Arts, Local Release

Golden Prague Burnt Toast (Opening Night) Grand Prix, Golden Prague May 2006, Czech Republic

Black Widow (Opening Night) Czech Crystal, Music or Dance Program made for Television

International Health & Medical Media Awards (Freddie Awards) The P.A.R.T.Y. DVD (CBC Halifax/ CBC Partnerships) Freddie Award (Best of Category) ‐ Youth Health

International Olympic Committee Golden Rings Competition Torino Olympic Games Bronze Ring (Domestic Production Category)

Exhibit CDN‐1‐H 1

International Awards 2004 ‐ 2006 CBC Television Network

2006 Awards (continued)

The New York Festivals Sex Traffic Silver WorldMedal – Best Camerawork (Chris Seager)

I, Claudia (Opening Night) (Sienna Films) Silver WorldMedal – Performing Arts

Seoul Drama Awards : The Story Best Actor Award (Michael Therriault)

WorldFest Houston Shakin All Over! Platinum Remi Award

Sammy’s Episode (What it’s Like Being Alone) (The Orphanage Inc./CBC) Gold Remi Award

2005 Awards

AIB Awards (Association for International Broadcasting) How Bad Do You Want It (Nerve) Finalist, Best Children’s TV Program

British Academy Television Awards Sex Traffic (Granada Production for co‐produced with CBC) British Academy Television Award for best drama serial British Academy Television Award for best actress () British Academy Television Craft Award for editing (fiction) British Academy Television Craft Award for make‐up and hair design British Academy Television Craft Award for Original Television Music British Academy Television Craft Award for photography and lighting (fiction) British Academy Television Craft Award for production design British Academy Television Craft Award for sound in fiction/entertainment British Academy Television Craft Award Nomination for best costume design

2

International Awards 2004 ‐ 2006 CBC Television Network

2005 Awards (continued)

Chicago International Television Competition (Part of the Chicago International Film Festival) II Duce Canadese Silver Hugo Award, mini‐series category

Columbia/Dupont Crash of Flight 111 (The Nature of Things) (Nova, WBGH‐TV and CBC) Finalist, duPont Award

Columbus International Film & Video Festival Passion & Fury: The Emotional Brain “Anger” (The Nature of Things) The Silver Chris (Best of its Division)

Sex, Lies and Secrecy: Dissecting Hysterectomy (The Nature of Things) The Chris statuette

Passion & Fury: The Emotional Brain “Happiness” (The Nature of Things) The Chris statuette

Passion & Fury: The Emotional Brain (the series) The Chris statuette

Nerve: (R)evolution The Chris statuette

Gabriel Awards One Night in Acadie Honourable Mention

Gracie Allen Awards (Presented by the American Women in Radio & Television) Past Life Investigation Outstanding Reality Show

International Emmy Awards The Newsroom International Emmy Award – Comedy

3

International Awards 2004 ‐ 2006 CBC Television Network

2005 Awards (continued)

International Emmy Awards Holocaust – A Musical Memorial Film from Auschwitz (CBC/BBC/TVP/ZDF) International Emmy Award – Arts Programming

The Hamburg Cell Nominee – TV Movie/Mini‐series

International Health & Medical Media Awards (Freddie Awards) Passion and Fury: The Emotional Brain (The Nature of Things) Winner – Health Series

International Olympic Committee Golden Rings Competition CBC Television received a bronze trophy in the category of Best Olympic Programme for coverage of Canadian hurdler Perdita Felicien at the 2004 Olympic Summer Games in Athens.

The Japan Prize Poko II: Poko, Bibi Runner Up ‐ Early Childhood

Japan Wildlife Film Festival Being Caribou (The Nature of Things) Best Environment and Conservation Award

Dr. (The Nature of Things) Lifetime Contribution to the Environment Award

Juno Awards Toronto Rocks, Fred Nicolaidis Nomination – Best Music DVD of the Year

Festival du Film Jules Vernes The Ghosts of Lomako (The Nature of Things) Jury Special Award

4

International Awards 2004 ‐ 2006 CBC Television Network

2005 Awards (continued)

Monana CINE When is Enough, Enough? (The Nature of Things) Focus Award

The Hollowmen (The Nature of Things) Screening Award

Monte‐Carlo Television Festival H20 Nymphe d’Or, Best Actor (Paul Gross) Nomination, best mini‐series

Sex Traffic Nymphe d’Or, Best Actress (Anamaria Marinca) Nomination, Best Mini‐series

The New York Festivals Cross Canada Candlelight Christmas ‐ Windsor Concert (Opening Night) Gold World Medal ‐ Best Performance

Athens 2004: The Olympic Games (CBC/Radio‐Canada) Gold World Medal ‐ Sports Program Opener and Titles

When Is Enough, Enough? (The Nature of Things) Silver World Medal ‐ Environment & Ecology

Il Duce Canadese Silver World Medal – Mini Series

The Value Of Life: Aids In Africa (The Nature of Things) Bronze World Medal – Health/Medical Issues

The Weight Of The World (The Nature of Things) Bronze World Medal – Best Direction (Documentary/Info)

72 Hours: True Crime (Kensington Communications/Creative Anarchy) Bronze World Medal ‐ Docudrama

5

International Awards 2004 ‐ 2006 CBC Television Network

2005 Awards (continued)

Prix Europa Sex Traffic Special Commendation

Prix Italia Sex Traffic Prize – Best TV Drama (Movies & Mini‐series) Prize – President of the Republic’s Silver Cup Prize – Special Students’ Prize

18th Annual Rencontres Internationales de Television de Reims Sex Traffic Best drama

Royal Television Society Sex Traffic (Granada/Channel 4/CBC) Best drama serial Best actor, female (Anamaria Marinca)

San Francisco International Film Festival (Golden Gate Awards) Baghdad Bound (The Newsroom, Season 3) Golden Gate Award – TV Narrative Short Form

Summitt Awards (Portland) My 48 Pontiac (Opening Night) Silver

WorldFest Houston Popcorn With Maple Syrup (Opening Night) (Pinewood Films Inc, Peter Rowe Productions in association with CBC) Special Jury Award

My 48 Pontiac (Opening Night) Platinum Remi Award

6

International Awards 2004 ‐ 2006 CBC Television Network

2004 Awards

Chicago International Television Competition (part of Chicago Int’l Film Festival) Amelia (Opening Night) Silver Hugo, Special Performance Event

Columbus International Film & Video Festival Practice, Practice, Practice (Opening Night) The Silver Chris (Children & Youth) Bronze Plaque (Arts Category)

Robert W Wagner Award Human Cargo (Best Narrative Screenwriting) Bronze Plaque

The Weight of The World (The Nature of Things) (CBC/NFB) The Chris statuette The Chris statuette (2nd category)

The Value of Life ‐ AIDS in Africa Revisited (The Nature of Things) The Chris statuette

Seeking the Way: The Hockey Journey of the Tootoo Brothers The Chris statuette

Sports from the Edge The Chris statuette

Corporate Agriculture: The Hollow Men (The Nature of Things) The Chris statuette

Karen Armstrong "Spiral Staircase" (Hot Type) The Chris statuette

Flying on the : The Ludmila Story (Opening Night) The Chris statuette

II Duce Canadese The Chris statuette

Gert’s Secret (Rage Against The Darkness) The Chris Statuette

7

International Awards 2004 ‐ 2006 CBC Television Network

2004 Awards (continued)

Earthwatch Film Award, Washington D.C. Lords of the Arctic (The Nature of Things) Sole winner of the 2004 Earthwatch Film Award

Golden Rose (Rose D’Or) Amelia (Opening Night) Rose d’Or

Gracie Allen Awards (Presented by the American Women in Radio & Television) Land and Sea: Built From Scratch (Land and Sea) (Newfoundland & Labrador) Gracie Allen Award for Magazine Show

Legacy – The Halifax Explosion (CBC Halifax) Gracie Allen Award Outstanding Magazine Program, Local Markets 26+

International Emmy Awards Henry VIII Nomination – TV Movie/Mini Series

Amelia Nomination ‐ Arts Programming

The Newsroom – Anchors Away Nomination ‐ Comedy

International Health & Medical Media Awards (Freddie Awards) The Value of Life ‐ AIDS in Africa Revisited (The Nature of Things) Freddie Award, Prevention Category Finalist, Community Health Category Finalist, Infectious Diseases Category

Weight of the World (The Nature of Things) Freddie, Community Health Category

The Japan Prize Nerve: How Bad Do You Want It? of Foreign Affairs Prize for Youth Education (Best Youth Education Program) and a cash prize

8

International Awards 2004 ‐ 2006 CBC Television Network

2004 Awards (continued)

The New York Festivals The Life and Times of Pope John Paul II Grand Award for Best Documentary

The Life & Times of Pope John Paul II Gold WorldMedal, Best Biography/profiles

The New York Festivals – Film & Video Competition Ghosts of Lomako (The Nature of Things) Gold WorldMedal, Best nature & wildlife

The Peabody Award Ross Sheppard vs Kennebecasis (Smart Ask) Prix Jeunesse Finalist & 3rd Place Certificate in Entertainment Category

Wildscreen When is Enough, Enough? (The Nature of Things) Finalist, One Planet Category

WorldFest Houston II Duce Canadese Platinum Remi Award

Sacred Balance Platinum Remi Award

9 Video Log CBC Television 2004‐2005 Season Launch

The Greatest Canadian Da Vinci’s Inquest Making the Cut What It’s Like Being Alone Trudeau: the Prequel Dragon Booster Shania: The Movie Surprise! It’s Edible Incredible! Tommy Douglas: The Movie Maple Shorts H20 Spynet Sex Traffic Nerve Murder Unveiled Chilly Beach Open Heart Distant Drumming: A North of 60 Mystery Movie Shake Hands with the Devil: Papa Alpha The Journey of Romeo Dallaire Chasing Freedom O.Com: Cybersex Addiction Il Duce Canadese The Take The Lord of the Rings: the Fellowship of the Ring Sin Cities Harry Potter: The Philosopher’s Stone Rage Against the Darkness Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets Canada’s War in Colour Miss Marple CBC News: The National The Forsyte Saga II CBC News: Canada Now Gunpowder, Treason and Plot, Mary Queen of Scots CBC News: Morning Coronation Street CBC News: Sunday Coronation Street Specials CBC News: Sunday Night Canadian Antiques Roadshow CBC News: the fifth estate Opening Night CBC News: Marketplace Diana Krall & Friends CBC News: Venture Makin’ Noise for Salome Cruelty Call The Chieftains Special Past Life Investigations Cirque du Soleil: La Nouba CBC Newsworld Oscar & Oliver: The Concert CBC News: Correspondent Montreal Jazz Festival CBC News: Face to Face Shakin’ All Over Hemispheres HSBC Stars on Ice Fashion File Holiday Festival on Ice Sex, Truth & Videotape ’s Gotta Skate IV A Year at Kew: Living Garden History Isabelle Brasseur & Lloyd Eisler Farewell Show Rough Cuts Comedy Week: Comedy Gold Cinema Real Comedy Week: Men With Brooms World Cup of Hockey Comedy Week: My Big Fat Greek Wedding World Figure Skating Championships The Tournament The Rogers Cup Ciao Bella Tennis Masters Canada The Magical Gathering Spruce Meadows Equestrian The Wonderful World of Disney Rick Mercer’s Monday Report CBC Sports Saturday Royal Canadian Air Farce CFL on CBC This Hour Has 22 Minutes Athens 2004 Paralympic Games The Red Green Show CBC’s Hockey Day in Canada Just For Laughs CBC’s Hockey Night in Canada Halifax Comedy Fest Athens 2004 The Olympic Games CBC Winnipeg Comedy Show The Newsroom Ends: 18:37 This is Wonderland Exhibit CDN‐1‐I

United States by State - TM-PCT028. Percent of Persons of French (except Basque) Ance... Page 1 of 1

U.s. Census Bureau .11 American FactFlndeL--

TM-PCT028. Percent of Persons of French (except Basque) Ancestry: 2000 ... Universe: Total population ~, , ~ Data Set: Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF 3) - Sample Data ~ United States by State NOTE: Data based on a sample except in P3, P4, H3, and H4. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, definitions, and count corrections see http://factfinder.census.gov/home/en/datanotes/expsf3.htm.

Leaend

Data Classes Percen: 0'1 - 1.9 2.0 - 3.0 ~" "-J_. 3.1 - '1.9 6.3 - 8.0 ~ 10.9 - 14.6 Features

r :m w r e.

ItEmS ingr :(text

are roo: visible a: :hi s zooml;roel

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 3, Matrices P1, and PCT18.

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ThematicMapFramesetServlet? _bm=y&-geo _id=O1000... 1/22/2009 United States by State - TM-PCT029. Percent of Persons of French Canadian Ancestry: 2... Page 1 of 1

u.s. Census Bureau ''It American FactFlnder--__

TM-PCT029. Percent of Persons of French Canadian Ancestry: 2000 Universe: Total population Data Set: Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF 3) - Sample Data United States by State

NOTE: Data based on a sample except in P3, P4, H3, and H4. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, definitions, and count corrections see .http://factfinder.census.gov/home/en/datanotes/expsf3.htm

Leaend

Data Classes Percent o.o - 0.5 ~. 0.6 - 1.2 '\"1__ 1.9 - 3.2 '1.9 - 6.4 ~ 8.6 - 10.3 Features U :r

r Hi W:

I terns i r.g.r~:.''tex! are not visible at thi 5 zoon

I . I 'CJ~

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 3, Matrices P1, and PCT18.

http://factfinder.census.gov/servletiThematicMapFramesetServlet?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000...1/2212009 Internatio nal Awards 2004 ‐ 2005

Télévision de Radio‐Canada Network

2005 Awards

New York Festivals Athènes 2004 Gold Medal / Category: Sports Program Opener & Titles New York – January 2005

Découverte : Luna L’épaulard Égaré Silver Medal / Category: Environment and Ecology New York – January 2005

Enjeux : Poussière Mortelle Bronze Medal / Category: Best News Documentary New York – January 2005

5e Festival du Film Scientifique – La Réunion Découverte : La Greffe De Sang De Cordon Ombilical Grand Prix Sciences Réunion France – April 2005

PROMAX Awards Jeux Olympiques D'athènes 2004 Silver prize / Category: Campaign Using More Than One Media New York – June 2005

Broadcast Design Association Awards (BDA) Athènes 2004 Gold Prize / Category: Interstitials New York – June 2005

Athènes 2004 Gold Prize / Category: Program Opener New York – June 2005

Athènes 2004 Gold Prize / Category: All Around – Sports New York – June 2005

simondurivage.com Silver Prize / Category: Interstitials New York – June 2005 Exhibit CDN‐1‐K

1 Internatio nal Awards 2004 ‐ 2005

Télévision de Radio‐Canada Network

2005 Awards (continued)

Broadcast Design Association Awards (BDA) Gala Des Prix Gémeaux Silver Prize / Category: Interstitials (Category: Set – Special) New York – June 2005

5 sur 5 Bronze Prize / Category: Graphics New York – June 2005

Tout Le Monde En Parle Bronze Prize / Category: Talk Show Set New York – June 2005

BDA World Gold Awards Athènes 2004 Gold Prize / Category: Interstitials New York – June 2005

Athènes 2004 Gold Prize / Category: Program Opener New York – June 2005

2004 Awards

New York Festivals Zone Libre: Searching For Sarah « Portée Disparues » Silver Medal / Category: Best News Documentary United States – January 2004

Prix Italia Enjeux: Téléréalité: La Grande Illusion (Reality Show) Vincitore Signis Award (This award is given by the World Catholic Association for Communication) Italy – September 2004

36th Festival international du Film maritime,d’exploration et d’environnement Découverte: Les Marées Noires Environment Prize France – October 2004

2 TÉLÉVISION DE RADIO‐CANADA SCHEDULE 2003/2004 CCG J SC P S

TIME MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY SUNDAY TIME 6:00 AM Tweenies Benjamin 6:00 AM 6:30 Les chatouilles Les chatouilles 64, rue du zoo Petit ours Rolie, Polie, Olie 6:30 6:45 Moi / Les Frimousses Max & Rudy Le monde d'Henri 7:00 AM 7:00 AM Sagwa Arthur / Sagwa 7:30 Dominque raconte… 7:45 7:30 Matin Express Rémi Le légende 8:00 AM de Tarzan 8:00 AM Corneil & Bernie Papyrus 8:30 8:30 Kim Possibie 9:00 AM Les mystères Ayoye ! 9:30 9:00 AM de Moville 9:30 10:00 AM Cinéma Ayoye ! Le jour 10:00 AM du seigneur 10:30 Galidor / Fais‐moi 11:00 AM 10:30 peur ! Mon ange 11:00 AM Ricardo Amandine Malabul 11:30 11:30 L'heure du midi 12:00 PM L'heure du midi 12:00 PM Justice La semaine 12:30 12:30 verte Caméra 1:00 PM 1:00 PM La facture Justice Découverte Zone libre Enjeux témoin Second regard 1:30 1:30 et et L'épicerie Second regard L'accent Mémoires 2:00 PM 2:00 PM Le monde de d'enfance 2:30 Sous le signe du lion/ Fred‐dy Rivière‐des‐ Charlotte Ça vaut le détour ! 2:30 Le coeur découvert Jérémie Caserne 24 Christiane Charette 3:00 PM Ricardo en direct 3:00 PM Des mots et 3:30 3:30 des maux Art Attack 4:00 PM 4:00 PM Tetes à kat Adrénaline Les belles histoires des 4:30 Watatatow Le plateau pays d'en hâut 4:30

Page 1 of 6 Exhibit CDN‐1‐L TÉLÉVISION DE RADIO‐CANADA SCHEDULE 2003/2004 CCG J SC P S

TIME MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY SUNDAY TIME 5:00 PM 5:00 PM Adrénaline 5 sur 5 5:30 Aujourd'hui 5:30 6:00 PM Le téléjournal 6:00 PM

6:30 L'union fait la force La petite vie 6:30 Découverte 7:00 PM Virginie Informan 7:00 PM

7:30 Rumeurs La facture Le monde de L'épicerie Palmares Les 7:30 Charlotte

8:00 PM Les Les grands films / beaux 8:00 PM L'auberge du Les super mamies/ Le dernier chapitre: Marché Jean‐Talon/ grands 8:30 chien noir Samuel et la mer/ la vengeance/ Un gars, une fille La fureur La soirée du dimanches

Le bleu du ciel Solstrom Catherine/Les Bougon hockey 8:30

films C'est aussi ça la vie 9:00 PM Les aventures tumultueuses de Cap Random/La 9:00 PM Jack Carter/Humoristes à Enjeux Qui l'eût cru ! double vie de Diane Zone libre 9:30 9:30 table/Grande ourse/Folles Sullivan/…ce soir de jeunesse, phobies de vieillesse on joue 10:00 PM Le téléjournal 10:00 PM Le téléjournal / Le point Conversation 10:30 10:30 Cinéma sous Le territoire de 11:00 PM 11:00 PM Crimes et tension l'autre/Le garage tourments Les grands Christiane 11:30 11:30 Vues d'ici documentaires Charette de Découverte en direct 12:00 AM Cinéma Brio Ciné‐club 12:00 AM 12:30 Cinéma Bibliotheca Culture‐choc

1:00 AM Le politique Fédérale 1:00 AM 1:05 Le politique provinciale

Page 2 of 6 TÉLÉVISION DE RADIO‐CANADA SCHEDULE 2004/2005

TIME MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY SUNDAY TIME 6:00 AM Tweenies La Famille Les chatouilles Les 6:00 AM 6:30 Les chatouilles Passiflore Hoobs Les Frimousses La Famille Lapitch ‐ Le petit 6:30 6:45 64, rue du zoo Berenstain cordonnier 7:00 Boohbah 7:00 7:30 Les Rolie, Polie, 7:30 Sauvetout Olie 8:00 Matin Express Le Monde Poko 8:00 d'Henri 8:30 Mona le vampire Sagwa 8:30 Kim La grosse minute Le 9:00 Possible roi c'est moi ! 9:00 Zoé Kézako Les mystères 9:30 9:30 37 5 Hôtel Bordemer de Moville 9:45 10:00 Chasseurs de dragon Le jour du 10:00 10:30 C'est dans l'air ! La Légende de Tarzan seigneur 10:30 11:00 Code lyoko 11:00 Ricardo Spider‐man‐les Mon ange 11:30 Simondurivage.com nouvelles aventures 11:30 12:00 PM Le Téléjournal / Midi 12:00 PM 12:30 12:30 La semaine Simondurivage.com Ciné ‐ verte 1:00 famille 1:00

1:30 Second regard 1:30 Urgences 2:00 La Douce Folie 37 5 Hebdo 2:00 2:30 de l'aventure 2:30 3:00 La loi et l'ordre L'accent Le revers de 3:00 la médaille 3:30 Territoire de l'autre/ 3:30 Les Aventures de Tintin / Belle et Sébastien Brio 4:45 Benjamin Adrénaline 4:00 4:00 Ça vaut Lizzie McGuire le détour ! 4:30 W Têtes @ kat 4:30

CCG J SC P S

Page 3 of 6 TÉLÉVISION DE RADIO‐CANADA SCHEDULE 2004/2005

TIME MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY SUNDAY TIME 5:00 PM Le groulx luxe Histoires 5:00 PM Watatatow c'est n'importe quoi ! Oubliées 5 sur 5 5:30 Justice 5:30 6:00 Le téléjournal / Montréal Le téléjournal 6:00

6:30 L'union fait la force 6:30 La fureur Découverte 7:00 Virginie Francoeur 7:00 et Dieu créa.. 7:30 Rumeurs La facture Un monde L'épicerie Infoman Laflaque 7:30 à part 8:00 Les 8:00 L'auberge du Qui l'eût Ça va être grands chien noir Le bleu du ciel Un gars, une cru ! ta fête ! films Tout le 8:30 fille et... monde en 8:30 parle 9:00 Les Bougon‐ c'est 9:00 Temps dur / Enjeux aussi ça la vie ! Ciao Bella Zone libre 9:30 Eau trouble La vie rêvée La Petite Vie Les Leçons 9:30 de Mario Jean de Josh 10:00 Le téléjournal 10:00 10:30 Le téléjournal / Le point Le Garage 10:30 Pleins Feux 11:00 11:00 C'est dans l'air ! Cinéma 11:30 11:30 Cinéma

12:00 AM Mémoires Les grands Ciné‐club 12:00 AM d'enfance Découverte documentaires de Vues Cinéma 12:30 Bibliotheca découverte d'ici Cinéma 1:00 Le politique féd. Insectia 1:00 1:05 Le politique prov.

CCG J SC P S

Page 4 of 6 TÉLÉVISION DE RADIO‐CANADA SCHEDULE 2005/2006

TIME MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY SUNDAY TIME 6:00 AM Les La Petite Minute 6:00 AM Hoobs Kléo Boohbah 6:30 Matin Express Poko La Famille 7:00 Passiflore Les Les 7:30 Sauvetout Calinours 8:00 Mona le vampire Dominique Raconte 8:00 Les Cotoons 8:15 Simondurivage.com La grosse minute Le Monde 8:30 W.I.T.C.H. d'Henri 9:00 La grosse minute 9:00 Le Roi C'est Moi ! Coup de Pouce Lizzie McGuire Code Lyoko 9:30 10:00 Ma Vie de Star / 10:00 Droit au Coeur La Légende de Tarzan Le jour du 11:00 La Légende du Dragon seigneur 10:30 Ricardo Le Projet Zeta Les Coulisses 11:00 11:30 Spider‐Man du Pouvoir 11:30 Simondurivage.com 12:00 PM Le téléjournal / Midi 12:00 PM Le Téléjournal / Midi Art La semaine 12:30 12:30 Simondurivage.com Circuit verte L'accent 1:00 1:00 109/ Y Paraît Second 1:30 Urgences que… Regard Vu de 2:00 2:00 Ça Vaut Large Deuxième Chance le Détour ! Histoires 2:30 Oubliées 3:00 Iznogoud 3:00 Les Belles Histoires des Pays d'en Haut Les Aventures 3:30 de Tintin Ciné‐famille 4:00 Aux Frontières 4:00 La Fosse aux Lionnes de l'étrange Match ! 4:30

CCG J SC P S

Page 5 of 6 TÉLÉVISION DE RADIO‐CANADA SCHEDULE 2005/2006

TIME MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY SUNDAY TIME 5:00 PM Le téléjournal 5:00 PM Le téléjournal / Montréal 5 sur 5 5:30 6:00 L'union Fait la Force 6:00 Véro 6:30 La Petite 6:30 Vie La fureur Découverte 7:00 Virginie Au‐Delà du Réal 7:30 Rumeurs La facture L'épicerie Cover Girl Infoman et Dieu créa.. 7:30 Laflaque 8:00 8:00

L'auberge du Providence Le Match Les Mission Janette Les Tout le chien noir des Étoiles de Patrice grands monde en films parle 9:00 SMASH Enjeux Les Au Nom Zone 9:30 Les Bougon‐ C'est Invincibles de la Loi Libre Aussi ça la Vie ! 10:00 Le téléjournal 10:00 Le téléjournal / Le point 10:30 Au Nom Pleins de la Loi Feux 11:00 Au‐Dessus de la Mêlée 11:30 11:30 Pour L'amour Véro Janette du Country Ciné‐club 12:00 AM 12:30 AM La Fosse aux Lionnes Cinéma 1:30 Le politique féd. Parlez‐moi des Cinéma Le politique prov. Hommes,Parlez‐moi des Femmes

CCG J SC P S

Page 6 of 6 Royalties Paid For Distant Signals 1998 through 2005 Total Distant Royalties (Base, 3.75% and Syndex) Relative Change By Accounting Period From 1998-1999 Average Total All Other Canadian Total All Other Accounting Period Canadian Signals Signal Types Signals Signal Types 1998-1 $1,160,429 $36,922,246 1998-2 $1,122,303 $37,943,928 1999-1 $1,289,424 $39,297,637 1999-2 $1,385,943 $39,483,040 1998-1999 Average $1,239,525 $38,411,713 2000-1 $1,516,426 $41,675,901 22% 8% 2000-2 $1,478,853 $41,549,030 19% 8% 2001-1 $1,520,197 $42,404,630 23% 10% 2001-2 $1,862,506 $43,043,719 50% 12% 2002-1 $2,233,415 $44,778,784 80% 17% 2002-2 $2,134,143 $46,626,564 72% 21% 2003-1 $2,079,158 $46,728,937 68% 22% 2003-2 $2,454,412 $46,464,972 98% 21% 2004-1 $2,228,738 $48,012,156 80% 25% 2004-2 $1,886,884 $50,057,958 52% 30% 2005-1 $2,151,952 $50,614,159 74% 32% 2005-2 $2,270,745 $50,874,214 83% 32%

Relative Change By Year From 1998-1999 Average Total All Other Canadian Total All Other Year Canadian Signals Signal Types Signals Signal Types 1998 $2,282,732 $74,866,174 1999 $2,675,367 $78,780,677 1998-1999 Average $2,479,050 $76,823,426 2000 $2,995,279 $83,224,931 21% 8% 2001 $3,382,703 $85,448,349 36% 11% 2002 $4,367,558 $91,405,348 76% 19% 2003 $4,533,570 $93,193,909 83% 21% 2004 $4,115,622 $98,070,114 66% 28% 2005 $4,422,697 $101,488,373 78% 32%

Exhibit CDN-1-M, page 1 Royalties Paid For Distant Signals 1998 through 2005

Base Royalties

Relative Change By Accounting Period From 1998-1999 Average Total All Other Canadian Total All Other Accounting Period Canadian Signals Signal Types Signals Signal Types 1998-1 $1,137,931 $32,003,322 1998-2 $1,092,786 $33,153,775 1999-1 $1,259,893 $34,390,096 1999-2 $1,325,435 $33,992,214 1998-1999 Average $1,204,011 $33,384,852 2000-1 $1,418,457 $35,281,387 18% 6% 2000-2 $1,429,401 $35,953,190 19% 8% 2001-1 $1,466,254 $36,097,290 22% 8% 2001-2 $1,592,100 $36,118,254 32% 8% 2002-1 $2,034,544 $37,884,561 69% 13% 2002-2 $1,783,054 $37,695,175 48% 13% 2003-1 $1,829,288 $38,514,913 52% 15% 2003-2 $2,005,715 $38,626,062 67% 16% 2004-1 $1,765,414 $38,839,146 47% 16% 2004-2 $1,670,310 $40,444,803 39% 21% 2005-1 $1,888,116 $41,775,743 57% 25% 2005-2 $1,974,321 $42,879,531 64% 28%

Relative Change By Year From 1998-1999 Average Total All Other Canadian Total All Other Year Canadian Signals Signal Types Signals Signal Types 1998 $2,230,717 $65,157,097 1999 $2,585,328 $68,382,310 1998-1999 Average $2,408,023 $66,769,704 2000 $2,847,858 $71,234,577 18% 7% 2001 $3,058,354 $72,215,544 27% 8% 2002 $3,817,598 $75,579,736 59% 13% 2003 $3,835,003 $77,140,975 59% 16% 2004 $3,435,724 $79,283,949 43% 19% 2005 $3,862,437 $84,655,274 60% 27%

Exhibit CDN-1-M, page 2 Royalties Paid For Distant Signals 1998 through 2005

3.75% Royalties

Relative Change By Accounting Period From 1998-1999 Average Total All Other Canadian Total All Other Accounting Period Canadian Signals Signal Types Signals Signal Types 1998-1 $9,532 $4,887,522 1998-2 $15,007 $4,759,736 1999-1 $29,531 $4,876,613 1999-2 $36,024 $5,466,676 1998-1999 Average $22,524 $4,997,637 2000-1 $37,883 $6,363,125 68% 27% 2000-2 $32,194 $5,585,287 43% 12% 2001-1 $37,465 $6,278,017 66% 26% 2001-2 $242,314 $6,914,562 976% 38% 2002-1 $198,871 $6,877,899 783% 38% 2002-2 $351,089 $8,911,289 1459% 78% 2003-1 $249,870 $8,195,265 1009% 64% 2003-2 $448,697 $7,820,259 1892% 56% 2004-1 $463,324 $9,151,690 1957% 83% 2004-2 $216,574 $9,587,932 862% 92% 2005-1 $263,836 $8,817,188 1071% 76% 2005-2 $296,424 $7,968,658 1216% 59%

Relative Change By Year From 1998-1999 Average Total All Other Canadian Total All Other Year Canadian Signals Signal Types Signals Signal Types 1998 $24,539 $9,647,258 1999 $65,555 $10,343,289 1998-1999 Average $45,047 $9,995,274 2000 $70,077 $11,948,412 56% 20% 2001 $279,779 $13,192,579 521% 32% 2002 $549,960 $15,789,188 1121% 58% 2003 $698,567 $16,015,524 1451% 60% 2004 $679,898 $18,739,622 1409% 87% 2005 $560,260 $16,785,846 1144% 68%

Exhibit CDN-1-M, page 3 Royalties Paid For Distant Signals 1998 through 2005

Syndex Royalties

Relative Change By Accounting Period From 1998-1999 Average Total All Other Canadian Total All Other Accounting Period Canadian Signals Signal Types Signals Signal Types 1998-1 $12,966 $31,402 1998-2 $14,510 $30,417 1999-1 $0 $30,928 1999-2 $24,484 $24,150 1998-1999 Average $12,990 $29,224 2000-1 $60,086 $31,389 363% 7% 2000-2 $17,258 $10,553 33% -64% 2001-1 $16,478 $29,323 27% 0% 2001-2 $28,092 $10,903 116% -63% 2002-1 $0 $16,324 -100% -44% 2002-2 $0 $20,100 -100% -31% 2003-1 $0 $18,759 -100% -36% 2003-2 $0 $18,651 -100% -36% 2004-1 $0 $21,320 -100% -27% 2004-2 $0 $25,223 -100% -14% 2005-1 $0 $21,228 -100% -27% 2005-2 $0 $26,025 -100% -11%

Relative Change By Year From 1998-1999 Average Total All Other Canadian Total All Other Year Canadian Signals Signal Types Signals Signal Types 1998 $27,476 $61,819 1999 $24,484 $55,078 1998-1999 Average $25,980 $58,449 2000 $77,344 $41,942 198% -28% 2001 $44,570 $40,226 72% -31% 2002 $0 $36,424 -100% -38% 2003 $0 $37,410 -100% -36% 2004 $0 $46,543 -100% -20% 2005 $0 $47,253 -100% -19%

Exhibit CDN-1-M, page 4 Relative Change in Total Distant Royalties For Distant Carriage Since 1998-1999 90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30% Relative Change in Percent in Change Relative

20%

10%

0% 1998-1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Average Canadian Signals - 21% 36% 76% 83% 66% 78% Total All Other Signal Types - 8% 11% 19% 21% 28% 32%

Exhibit CDN-1-M, page 5 Relative Change in Base Royalties For Distant Carriage Since 1998-1999 70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

Relative Change in Percent in Change Relative 20%

10%

0% 1998-1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Average Canadian Signals - 18% 27% 59% 59% 43% 60% Total All Other Signal Types - 7% 8% 13% 16% 19% 27%

Exhibit CDN-1-M, page 6 Relative Change in 3.75% Royalties For Distant Carriage Since 1998-1999 1600%

1400%

1200%

1000%

800%

600% Relative Change in Percent in Change Relative 400%

200%

0% 1998-1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Average Canadian Signals - 56% 521% 1121% 1451% 1409% 1144% Total All Other Signal Types - 20% 32% 58% 60% 87% 68%

Draft 5/27/2009 Exhibit CDN-1-M, page 7 Royalties Paid for Distant Signals by Signal Type 1998 through 2005

Total Royalties (Base, 3.75% and Syndex) Dollars Total (includes Accounting Independent Network Educational Canadian Low Power and Period Mexican) 1998-1 $32,531,762 $3,086,993 $1,250,433 $1,160,429 $38,082,675 1998-2 $33,561,446 $2,995,658 $1,337,503 $1,122,303 $39,066,231 1999-1 $34,683,568 $3,126,251 $1,379,184 $1,289,424 $40,587,061 1999-2 $34,781,568 $3,209,304 $1,401,169 $1,385,943 $40,868,983 2000-1 $36,726,429 $3,408,663 $1,348,308 $1,516,426 $43,192,327 2000-2 $36,618,554 $3,328,131 $1,435,261 $1,478,853 $43,027,883 2001-1 $37,046,985 $3,627,462 $1,459,947 $1,520,197 $43,924,827 2001-2 $37,677,409 $3,427,984 $1,586,058 $1,862,506 $44,906,225 2002-1 $38,700,185 $3,740,048 $1,838,940 $2,233,415 $47,012,199 2002-2 $40,503,389 $3,947,419 $1,660,300 $2,134,143 $48,760,707 2003-1 $40,577,989 $3,810,306 $1,819,232 $2,079,158 $48,808,095 2003-2 $40,200,986 $3,753,804 $1,883,522 $2,454,412 $48,919,384 2004-1 $41,808,038 $3,808,016 $1,713,033 $2,228,738 $50,240,894 2004-2 $43,787,648 $3,882,099 $1,757,224 $1,886,884 $51,944,842 2005-1 $44,239,090 $3,785,510 $1,796,099 $2,151,952 $52,766,111 2005-2 $44,943,609 $3,313,165 $1,810,020 $2,270,745 $53,144,959

Percentage Total (includes Accounting Independent Network Educational Canadian Low Power and Period Mexican) 1998-1 85.42% 8.11% 3.28% 3.05% 100.00% 1998-2 85.91% 7.67% 3.42% 2.87% 100.00% 1999-1 85.45% 7.70% 3.40% 3.18% 100.00% 1999-2 85.11% 7.85% 3.43% 3.39% 100.00% 2000-1 85.03% 7.89% 3.12% 3.51% 100.00% 2000-2 85.10% 7.73% 3.34% 3.44% 100.00% 2001-1 84.34% 8.26% 3.32% 3.46% 100.00% 2001-2 83.90% 7.63% 3.53% 4.15% 100.00% 2002-1 82.32% 7.96% 3.91% 4.75% 100.00% 2002-2 83.07% 8.10% 3.40% 4.38% 100.00% 2003-1 83.14% 7.81% 3.73% 4.26% 100.00% 2003-2 82.18% 7.67% 3.85% 5.02% 100.00% 2004-1 83.22% 7.58% 3.41% 4.44% 100.00% 2004-2 84.30% 7.47% 3.38% 3.63% 100.00% 2005-1 83.84% 7.17% 3.40% 4.08% 100.00% 2005-2 84.57% 6.23% 3.41% 4.27% 100.00%

Exhibit CDN-1-N, page 1 Royalties Paid for Distant Signals by Signal Type 1998 through 2005

Base Fund Royalties

Dollars Total (includes Accounting Independent Network Educational Canadian Low Power and Period Mexican) 1998-1 $28,590,158 $2,109,673 $1,250,433 $1,137,931 $33,141,253 1998-2 $29,723,360 $2,051,106 $1,329,988 $1,092,786 $34,246,561 1999-1 $30,771,705 $2,139,362 $1,370,395 $1,259,893 $35,649,989 1999-2 $30,362,375 $2,137,671 $1,401,169 $1,325,435 $35,317,649 2000-1 $31,637,369 $2,229,195 $1,339,005 $1,418,457 $36,699,844 2000-2 $32,216,996 $2,232,015 $1,435,174 $1,429,401 $37,382,591 2001-1 $32,142,167 $2,389,729 $1,459,947 $1,466,254 $37,563,544 2001-2 $32,049,187 $2,325,290 $1,572,486 $1,592,100 $37,710,354 2002-1 $33,323,641 $2,490,164 $1,823,209 $2,034,544 $39,919,105 2002-2 $33,464,024 $2,284,025 $1,648,419 $1,783,054 $39,478,229 2003-1 $34,058,703 $2,347,886 $1,807,492 $1,829,288 $40,344,201 2003-2 $34,000,305 $2,383,749 $1,870,510 $2,005,715 $40,631,777 2004-1 $34,449,102 $2,337,495 $1,694,275 $1,765,414 $40,604,560 2004-2 $36,040,437 $2,359,893 $1,719,772 $1,670,310 $42,115,113 2005-1 $37,274,332 $2,304,399 $1,784,938 $1,888,116 $43,663,859 2005-2 $38,536,848 $2,040,214 $1,779,617 $1,974,321 $44,853,852

Percentage Total (includes Accounting Independent Network Educational Canadian Low Power and Period Mexican) 1998-1 86.27% 6.37% 3.77% 3.43% 100.00% 1998-2 86.79% 5.99% 3.88% 3.19% 100.00% 1999-1 86.32% 6.00% 3.84% 3.53% 100.00% 1999-2 85.97% 6.05% 3.97% 3.75% 100.00% 2000-1 86.21% 6.07% 3.65% 3.87% 100.00% 2000-2 86.18% 5.97% 3.84% 3.82% 100.00% 2001-1 85.57% 6.36% 3.89% 3.90% 100.00% 2001-2 84.99% 6.17% 4.17% 4.22% 100.00% 2002-1 83.48% 6.24% 4.57% 5.10% 100.00% 2002-2 84.77% 5.79% 4.18% 4.52% 100.00% 2003-1 84.42% 5.82% 4.48% 4.53% 100.00% 2003-2 83.68% 5.87% 4.60% 4.94% 100.00% 2004-1 84.84% 5.76% 4.17% 4.35% 100.00% 2004-2 85.58% 5.60% 4.08% 3.97% 100.00% 2005-1 85.37% 5.28% 4.09% 4.32% 100.00% 2005-2 85.92% 4.55% 3.97% 4.40% 100.00%

Exhibit CDN-1-N, page 2 Royalties Paid for Distant Signals by Signal Type 1998 through 2005

3.75% Fund Royalties

Dollars Total (includes Accounting Independent Network Educational Canadian Low Power and Period Mexican) 1998-1 $3,924,968 $962,554 $0 $9,532 $4,897,054 1998-2 $3,821,366 $930,855 $7,515 $15,007 $4,774,743 1999-1 $3,895,365 $972,459 $8,789 $29,531 $4,906,144 1999-2 $4,409,157 $1,057,519 $0 $36,024 $5,502,700 2000-1 $5,069,389 $1,167,750 $9,303 $37,883 $6,401,008 2000-2 $4,395,466 $1,091,655 $87 $32,194 $5,617,481 2001-1 $4,881,715 $1,231,513 $0 $37,465 $6,315,482 2001-2 $5,622,138 $1,097,875 $13,572 $242,314 $7,156,876 2002-1 $5,365,500 $1,244,951 $15,384 $198,871 $7,076,770 2002-2 $7,027,015 $1,655,644 $11,881 $351,089 $9,262,378 2003-1 $6,513,041 $1,449,906 $11,740 $249,870 $8,445,135 2003-2 $6,194,911 $1,357,174 $13,012 $448,697 $8,268,956 2004-1 $7,351,887 $1,456,250 $18,758 $463,324 $9,615,014 2004-2 $7,738,228 $1,506,223 $37,195 $216,574 $9,804,506 2005-1 $6,959,012 $1,465,629 $11,161 $263,836 $9,081,024 2005-2 $6,397,035 $1,256,948 $30,107 $296,424 $8,265,082

Percentage Total (includes Accounting Independent Network Educational Canadian Low Power and Period Mexican) 1998-1 80.15% 19.66% 0.00% 0.19% 100.00% 1998-2 80.03% 19.50% 0.16% 0.31% 100.00% 1999-1 79.40% 19.82% 0.18% 0.60% 100.00% 1999-2 80.13% 19.22% 0.00% 0.65% 100.00% 2000-1 79.20% 18.24% 0.15% 0.59% 100.00% 2000-2 78.25% 19.43% 0.00% 0.57% 100.00% 2001-1 77.30% 19.50% 0.00% 0.59% 100.00% 2001-2 78.56% 15.34% 0.19% 3.39% 100.00% 2002-1 75.82% 17.59% 0.22% 2.81% 100.00% 2002-2 75.87% 17.87% 0.13% 3.79% 100.00% 2003-1 77.12% 17.17% 0.14% 2.96% 100.00% 2003-2 74.92% 16.41% 0.16% 5.43% 100.00% 2004-1 76.46% 15.15% 0.20% 4.82% 100.00% 2004-2 78.93% 15.36% 0.38% 2.21% 100.00% 2005-1 76.63% 16.14% 0.12% 2.91% 100.00% 2005-2 77.40% 15.21% 0.36% 3.59% 100.00%

Exhibit CDN-1-N, page 3 Royalties Paid for Distant Signals by Signal Type 1998 through 2005

Syndex Fund Royalties

Dollars Total (includes Accounting Independent Network Educational Canadian Low Power and Period Mexican) 1998-1 $16,636 $14,766 $0 $12,966 $44,368 1998-2 $16,720 $13,697 $0 $14,510 $44,927 1999-1 $16,498 $14,430 $0 $0 $30,928 1999-2 $10,036 $14,114 $0 $24,484 $48,634 2000-1 $19,671 $11,718 $0 $60,086 $91,475 2000-2 $6,092 $4,461 $0 $17,258 $27,811 2001-1 $23,103 $6,220 $0 $16,478 $45,801 2001-2 $6,084 $4,819 $0 $28,092 $38,995 2002-1 $11,044 $4,933 $347 $0 $16,324 2002-2 $12,350 $7,750 $0 $0 $20,100 2003-1 $6,245 $12,514 $0 $0 $18,759 2003-2 $5,770 $12,881 $0 $0 $18,651 2004-1 $7,049 $14,271 $0 $0 $21,320 2004-2 $8,983 $15,983 $257 $0 $25,223 2005-1 $5,746 $15,482 $0 $0 $21,228 2005-2 $9,726 $16,003 $296 $0 $26,025

Percentage Total (includes Accounting Independent Network Educational Canadian Low Power and Period Mexican) 1998-1 37.50% 33.28% 0.00% 29.22% 100.00% 1998-2 37.22% 30.49% 0.00% 32.30% 100.00% 1999-1 53.34% 46.66% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 1999-2 20.64% 29.02% 0.00% 50.34% 100.00% 2000-1 21.50% 12.81% 0.00% 65.69% 100.00% 2000-2 21.91% 16.04% 0.00% 62.05% 100.00% 2001-1 50.44% 13.58% 0.00% 35.98% 100.00% 2001-2 15.60% 12.36% 0.00% 72.04% 100.00% 2002-1 67.65% 30.22% 2.13% 0.00% 100.00% 2002-2 61.44% 38.56% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 2003-1 33.29% 66.71% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 2003-2 30.94% 69.06% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 2004-1 33.06% 66.94% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 2004-2 35.61% 63.37% 1.02% 0.00% 100.00% 2005-1 27.07% 72.93% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 2005-2 37.37% 61.49% 1.14% 0.00% 100.00%

Exhibit CDN-1-N, page 4 Relative Change in Total Royalties Paid for Distant Signals Since 1998-1999 90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

Relative Change Relative in Percent 30%

20%

10%

0% 1998-1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Average Canadian - 21% 36% 76% 83% 66% 78% Independent - 8% 10% 17% 19% 26% 32% Network - 8% 14% 24% 22% 24% 14% Educational - 4% 13% 30% 38% 29% 34%

Exhibit CDN -1-N, page 5 Relative Change in Base Royalties Paid for Distant Signals Since 1998-1999 70%

60%

50%

40%

30% Relative Change Relative in Percent

20%

10%

0% 1998-1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Average Canadian - 18% 27% 59% 59% 43% 60% Independent - 7% 7% 12% 14% 18% 27% Network - 6% 12% 13% 12% 11% 3% Educational - 4% 13% 30% 37% 28% 33%

Exhibit CDN-1-N, page 6 Relative Change in 3.75% Royalties Paid for Distant Signals Since 1998-1999 1600%

1400%

1200%

1000%

800%

600% Relative Change Relative in Percent

400%

200%

0% 1998-1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Average Canadian - 56% 521% 1121% 1451% 1409% 1144% Independent - 18% 31% 54% 58% 88% 66% Network - 15% 19% 48% 43% 51% 39% Educational - 15% 66% 234% 204% 586% 406%

Exhibit CDN-1-N, page 7 Change in Minimum Fee Royalties For Systems with Zero Distant Stations

Minimum Fees from Number of Systems with Accounting Period Systems with Zero Zero Distant Stations Distant Stations Only 1990-1 17 $220,384 1990-2 12 $99,466 1991-1 13 $130,956 1991-2 12 $106,446 1992-1 14 $103,779 1992-2 17 $182,636 1993-1 15 $123,847 1993-2 18 $199,525 1994-1 10 $56,240 1994-2 14 $135,709 1995-1 12 $126,145 1995-2 12 $101,683 1996-1 15 $124,968 1996-2 27 $236,759 1997-1 38 $278,660 1997-2 40 $329,240 1998-1 459 $9,971,366 1998-2 437 $9,528,758 1999-1 382 $9,133,797 1999-2 378 $10,012,495 2000-1 380 $10,181,373 2000-2 311 $10,742,072 2001-1 325 $11,176,775 2001-2 312 $11,218,132 2002-1 306 $11,878,343 2002-2 308 $11,705,460 2003-1 300 $11,569,243 2003-2 272 $11,027,799 2004-1 261 $10,757,009 2004-2 214 $8,937,346 2005-1 210 $8,630,343 2005-2 182 $8,852,824

Exhibit CDN-1-O Summary of Royalties Generated by Canadian Distant Signals 1998 through 2005

Base Royalties

Canadian Signal All Signals Royalties as a Year Canadian Signals (Including Canadian) Percentage of All Signal Royalties 1998 $2,230,717 $67,387,814 3.31027% 1999 $2,585,328 $70,967,638 3.64297% 2000 $2,847,858 $74,082,435 3.84417% 2001 $3,058,354 $75,273,898 4.06297% 2002 $3,817,598 $79,397,334 4.80822% 2003 $3,835,003 $80,975,978 4.73598% 2004 $3,435,724 $82,719,673 4.15345% 2005 $3,862,437 $88,517,711 4.36346%

3.75% Royalties

Canadian Signal All Signals Royalties as a Year Canadian Signals (Including Canadian) Percentage of All Signal Royalties 1998 $24,539 $9,671,797 0.25372% 1999 $65,555 $10,408,844 0.62980% 2000 $70,077 $12,018,489 0.58308% 2001 $279,779 $13,472,358 2.07669% 2002 $549,960 $16,339,148 3.36590% 2003 $698,567 $16,714,091 4.17951% 2004 $679,898 $19,419,520 3.50111% 2005 $560,260 $17,346,106 3.22989%

Exhibit CDN-1-P Total Distant Royalties Paid by Form 3 Systems for Canadian Signals 2004 through 2005 Combined, by Signal

Total Distant Cumulative Percentage Signal Affiliation Royalties over Share of of Royalties 2 years Royalties

CBUT CBC $ 3,044,345 35.53% 35.53% CKSH CBC $ 1,392,843 16.25% 51.78% CBET CBC $ 1,211,321 14.14% 65.92% CBMT CBC $ 909,087 10.61% 76.52% CFTO CTV $ 440,020 5.13% 81.66% CBLT CBC $ 341,168 3.98% 85.64% CKWS CBC $ 314,599 3.67% 89.31% CHLT TVA $ 234,633 2.74% 92.05% CBFT CBC $ 177,951 2.08% 94.13% CHCH CANWEST GLOBAL $ 162,080 1.89% 96.02% CBWT CBC $ 88,197 1.03% 97.05% CIII CANWEST GLOBAL $ 72,727 0.85% 97.90% CJOH CTV $ 67,024 0.78% 98.68% CISA CANWEST GLOBAL $ 57,425 0.67% 99.35% CFCF CTV $ 28,637 0.33% 99.68% CKY CTV $ 9,042 0.11% 99.79% CBAFT CBC $ 4,395 0.05% 99.84% CBAT CBC $ 4,395 0.05% 99.89% CIMT TVA $ 4,395 0.05% 99.94% CKRT CBC $ 4,395 0.05% 99.99% CBOT CBC $ 644 0.01% 100.00%

Exhibit CDN-1-Q Distant Subscriber Instances 1998 through 2005 Relative Change By Accounting Period From 1998-1999 Average Total All Other Canadian Total All Other Accounting Period Canadian Signals Signal Types Signals Signal Types

1998-1 2,327,993 64,059,396 1998-2 2,444,712 65,383,286 1999-1 2,439,682 66,538,738 1999-2 2,517,869 65,546,945 1998-1999 Accounting Period 2,432,564 65,382,091 Average 2000-1 2,669,097 67,651,296 10% 3% 2000-2 2,585,301 66,144,447 6% 1% 2001-1 2,653,758 66,258,761 9% 1% 2001-2 2,913,025 67,658,907 20% 3% 2002-1 2,940,482 70,284,785 21% 7% 2002-2 2,803,228 67,886,093 15% 4% 2003-1 2,921,592 65,080,421 20% 0% 2003-2 3,262,903 67,828,088 34% 4% 2004-1 2,760,217 66,611,390 13% 2% 2004-2 2,614,578 71,256,505 7% 9% 2005-1 3,020,164 68,399,151 24% 5% 2005-2 2,860,093 65,278,076 18% 0%

Relative Change By Year From 1998-1999 Average Total All Other Canadian Total All Other Year Canadian Signals Signal Types Signals Signal Types 1998 4,772,705 129,442,682 1999 4,957,551 132,085,683 1998-1999 4,865,128 130,764,183 Annual Average 2000 5,254,398 133,795,743 8% 2% 2001 5,566,783 133,917,668 14% 2% 2002 5,743,710 138,170,878 18% 6% 2003 6,184,495 132,908,509 27% 2% 2004 5,374,795 137,867,895 10% 5% 2005 5,880,257 133,677,227 21% 2%

Exhibit CDN-1-R, page 1 Distant Subscriber Instances 1998 through 2005

By Signal Type

Subscriber Instances Total Accounting (includes Low Educational Independent Network Canadian Period Power and Mexican)

1998-1 6,759,956 44,823,509 12,390,331 2,327,993 66,387,389 1998-2 6,675,840 46,354,662 12,295,766 2,444,712 67,827,998 1999-1 7,197,983 46,799,617 12,433,075 2,439,682 68,978,420 1999-2 6,906,145 46,170,112 12,370,674 2,517,869 68,064,814 2000-1 7,312,512 47,210,365 12,986,626 2,669,097 70,320,393 2000-2 7,378,205 46,296,435 12,362,361 2,585,301 68,729,748 2001-1 7,349,460 46,023,231 12,691,231 2,653,758 68,912,519 2001-2 7,631,906 46,997,906 12,673,984 2,913,025 70,571,932 2002-1 7,992,233 47,567,051 14,203,397 2,940,482 73,225,267 2002-2 8,105,654 46,888,038 12,299,893 2,803,228 70,689,321 2003-1 8,565,559 44,307,823 11,704,640 2,921,592 68,002,013 2003-2 9,363,059 45,278,929 12,531,801 3,262,903 71,090,991 2004-1 8,441,273 45,486,549 12,051,522 2,760,217 69,371,607 2004-2 8,731,210 48,863,780 13,086,987 2,614,578 73,871,083 2005-1 8,803,075 47,309,300 11,604,903 3,020,164 71,419,315 2005-2 8,220,169 46,412,769 9,859,156 2,860,093 68,138,169

Percentages of Total Total Accounting (includes Low Educational Independent Network Canadian Period Power and Mexican)

1998-1 10.18% 67.52% 18.66% 3.51% 100.00% 1998-2 9.84% 68.34% 18.13% 3.60% 100.00% 1999-1 10.44% 67.85% 18.02% 3.54% 100.00% 1999-2 10.15% 67.83% 18.17% 3.70% 100.00% 2000-1 10.40% 67.14% 18.47% 3.80% 100.00% 2000-2 10.74% 67.36% 17.99% 3.76% 100.00% 2001-1 10.66% 66.79% 18.42% 3.85% 100.00% 2001-2 10.81% 66.60% 17.96% 4.13% 100.00% 2002-1 10.91% 64.96% 19.40% 4.02% 100.00% 2002-2 11.47% 66.33% 17.40% 3.97% 100.00% 2003-1 12.60% 65.16% 17.21% 4.30% 100.00% 2003-2 13.17% 63.69% 17.63% 4.59% 100.00% 2004-1 12.17% 65.57% 17.37% 3.98% 100.00% 2004-2 11.82% 66.15% 17.72% 3.54% 100.00% 2005-1 12.33% 66.24% 16.25% 4.23% 100.00% 2005-2 12.06% 68.12% 14.47% 4.20% 100.00%

Exhibit CDN-1-R, page 2 Distant Instances of Carriage 1998 through 2005

Relative Change By Accounting Period From 1998-1999 Average Canadian Total All Other Canadian Total All Other Accounting Period Signals Signal Types Signals Signal Types

1998-1 88 4,032 1998-2 85 4,114 1999-1 80 4,196 1999-2 78 4,229 1998-1999 Accounting Period 83 4,143 Average 2000-1 84 4,291 2% 4% 2000-2 72 3,505 -13% -15% 2001-1 74 3,511 -11% -15% 2001-2 82 3,559 -1% -14% 2002-1 77 3,575 -7% -14% 2002-2 89 3,708 8% -10% 2003-1 79 3,614 -5% -13% 2003-2 79 3,713 -5% -10% 2004-1 76 3,740 -8% -10% 2004-2 70 3,833 -15% -7% 2005-1 69 3,884 -17% -6% 2005-2 59 3,151 -29% -24%

Relative Change By Year From 1998-1999 Average Canadian Total All Other Canadian Total All Other Year Signals Signal Types Signals Signal Types

1998 173 8,146 1999 158 8,425 1998-1999 166 8,286 Annual Average 2000 156 7,796 -6% -6% 2001 156 7,070 -6% -15% 2002 166 7,283 0% -12% 2003 158 7,327 -5% -12% 2004 146 7,573 -12% -9% 2005 128 7,035 -23% -15%

Exhibit CDN-1-S, page 1 Distant Instances of Carriage 1998 through 2005

By Signal Type

Instances of Carriage

Total Accounting Educational Independent Network Canadian (includes Low Power Period and Mexican)

1998-1 590 2,224 1,212 88 4,120 1998-2 583 2,295 1,226 85 4,199 1999-1 603 2,315 1,265 80 4,276 1999-2 602 2,304 1,304 78 4,307 2000-1 626 2,315 1,329 84 4,375 2000-2 528 1,913 1,043 72 3,577 2001-1 528 1,889 1,068 74 3,585 2001-2 558 1,874 1,096 82 3,641 2002-1 577 1,847 1,117 77 3,652 2002-2 602 1,890 1,169 89 3,797 2003-1 608 1,831 1,128 79 3,693 2003-2 628 1,877 1,155 79 3,792 2004-1 646 1,863 1,176 76 3,816 2004-2 670 1,892 1,216 70 3,903 2005-1 679 1,897 1,238 69 3,953 2005-2 546 1,567 969 59 3,210

Percentages of Total

Total Accounting Educational Independent Network Canadian (includes Low Power Period and Mexican)

1998-1 14.32% 53.98% 29.42% 2.14% 100.00% 1998-2 13.88% 54.66% 29.20% 2.02% 100.00% 1999-1 14.10% 54.14% 29.58% 1.87% 100.00% 1999-2 13.98% 53.49% 30.28% 1.81% 100.00% 2000-1 14.31% 52.91% 30.38% 1.92% 100.00% 2000-2 14.76% 53.48% 29.16% 2.01% 100.00% 2001-1 14.73% 52.69% 29.79% 2.06% 100.00% 2001-2 15.33% 51.47% 30.10% 2.25% 100.00% 2002-1 15.80% 50.58% 30.59% 2.11% 100.00% 2002-2 15.85% 49.78% 30.79% 2.34% 100.00% 2003-1 16.46% 49.58% 30.54% 2.14% 100.00% 2003-2 16.56% 49.50% 30.46% 2.08% 100.00% 2004-1 16.93% 48.82% 30.82% 1.99% 100.00% 2004-2 17.17% 48.48% 31.16% 1.79% 100.00% 2005-1 17.18% 47.99% 31.32% 1.75% 100.00% 2005-2 17.01% 48.82% 30.19% 1.84% 100.00% Exhibit CDN-1-S, page 2 Instances of Carriage Compared to Subscriber Instances per Instance of Carriage 1983 through 2005

Canadian Distant Signals All Other Distant Signals

50,000 8,000 50,000 160 45,000 45,000 7,000 140 40,000 40,000 6,000 120 35,000 35,000

5,000 100 30,000 30,000

25,000 4,000 25,000 80 20,000 20,000

3,000 IOC per Subscrbers

60 SubscribersperIOC InstancesCarriage of (IOC) InstancesofCarriage (IOC) 15,000 15,000 40 2,000 10,000 10,000

20 1,000 5,000 5,000

0 0 - 0

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

------

------

89 90 97 98 05 83 84 85 86 87 88 91 92 93 94 95 96 99 00 01 02 03 04

83 86 90 93 97 00 04 84 85 87 88 89 91 92 94 95 96 98 99 01 02 03 05 Accounting Period Accounting Period

Subscribers/IOC Instances of Carriage (IOC) Subscribers/IOC Instances of Carriage (IOC)

Exhibit CDN-1-T, page 1 Instances of Carriage Compared to Subscriber Instances 1983 through 2005

Canadian Distant Signals All Other Distant Signals 3.5 8,000 140 160

7,000 3.0 120 140

6,000 120 2.5 100

5,000 100 2.0 80 4,000 80 1.5 60 3,000

60

Instancesof Carriage (IOC)

InstancesCarriage of (IOC) SubscriberInstances (millions) 1.0 InstancesSubscriber (millions) 40 2,000 40

20 0.5 1,000 20

0 0

0 0.0

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

------

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

------

84 91 94 98 01 04 83 85 86 87 88 89 90 92 93 95 96 97 99 00 02 03 05

89 90 91 02 03 04 05 83 84 85 86 87 88 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 Accounting Period Accounting Period

Subscriber Instances Instances of Carriage (IOC) Instances of Carriage (IOC) Subscriber Instances

Exhibit CDN-1-T, page 2 Relative Change in Total Royalties Paid Per Subscriber Instance Since 1998-1999 Canadian Signals Total Distant Distant Relative Change Total Distant Royalties per Year Subscriber From 1998- Royalties Subscriber Instances 1999 Average Instance

1998-1999 $2,479,050 4,865,128 $0.5096 - Annual Average 2000 $2,995,279 5,254,398 $0.5701 12% 2001 $3,382,703 5,566,783 $0.6077 19% 2002 $4,367,558 5,743,710 $0.7604 49% 2003 $4,533,570 6,184,495 $0.7331 44% 2004 $4,115,622 5,374,795 $0.7657 50% 2005 $4,422,697 5,880,257 $0.7521 48%

Total All Other Signal Types Total Distant Relative Change Total Distant Royalties per Year Subscriber From 1998- Royalties Subscriber Instances 1999 Average Instance

1998-1999 $76,823,426 130,764,183 $0.5875 - Annual Average 2000 $83,224,931 133,795,743 $0.6220 6% 2001 $85,448,349 133,917,668 $0.6381 9% 2002 $91,405,348 138,170,878 $0.6615 13% 2003 $93,193,909 132,908,509 $0.7012 19% 2004 $98,070,114 137,867,895 $0.7113 21% 2005 $101,488,373 133,677,227 $0.7592 29%

Exhibit CDN-1-U, page 1 Relative Change in Total Fund Royalties Paid Per Subscriber Instance Since 1998-1999 60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

20.00% Relative Change in Percent in Change Relative

10.00%

0.00% Average 1998- 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 99 Canadian Signals - 12% 19% 49% 44% 50% 48% All Other Signal Types - 6% 9% 13% 19% 21% 29%

Exhibit CDN-1-U page 2 Relative Change in Total Royalties Paid Per Instance of Carriage Since 1998-1999

Canadian Signals Total Distant Relative Distant Total Distant Royalties per Change Year Instances of Royalties Instance of From 1998- Carriage Carriage 1999 Average

1998-1999 $2,479,050 166 $14,979 - Annual 2000 $2,995,279 156 $19,201 28% 2001 $3,382,703 156 $21,684 45% 2002 $4,367,558 166 $26,311 76% 2003 $4,533,570 158 $28,693 92% 2004 $4,115,622 146 $28,189 88% 2005 $4,422,697 128 $34,552 131%

Total All Other Signal Types Total Distant Relative Distant Total Distant Royalties per Change Year Instances of Royalties Instance of From 1998- Carriage Carriage 1999 Average

1998-1999 $76,823,426 8,286 $9,272 - Annual 2000 $83,224,931 7,796 $10,675 15% 2001 $85,448,349 7,070 $12,086 30% 2002 $91,405,348 7,283 $12,551 35% 2003 $93,193,909 7,327 $12,719 37% 2004 $98,070,114 7,573 $12,950 40% 2005 $101,488,373 7,035 $14,426 56%

Exhibit CDN-1-V, page 1 Relative Change in Total Distant Royalties Paid per Instance of Carriage Since 1998-1999 140.00%

120.00%

100.00%

80.00%

60.00%

Relative Chaing in Percent in Chaing Relative 40.00%

20.00%

0.00% 1998-99 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Average Canadian Signals - 28% 45% 76% 92% 88% 131% All Other Signal Types - 15% 30% 35% 37% 40% 56%

Exhibit CDN-1-V, page 2

International Awards 2004 ‐ 2006

News & Current Affairs Programs

CBC Television Network

2006 Awards

Banff Television Festival God Only Knows: Same‐Sex (The Lens) “Playback Best Canadian Award” Nomination ‐ Social & Political Documentaries

British Academy Television Awards The Real Sex Traffic Nomination ‐ Flaherty Award For Single Documentary (, Brian Woods, Ric Bienstock (Associated Producers/True Vision Productions/CBC//Channel 4)

British Broadcast Awards The Real Sex Traffic (Sex Slaves – The Passionate Eye) Best Documentary Programme

The Power of Nightmares Best Documentary Series

Columbus International Film & Video Festival Who Shot My Brother (CBC News: The Passionate Eye) (The National Film Board/Argus Films in association with CBC Newsworld) Best of Festival

the fifth estate ‐ Tsunami: Untold Stories The Silver Chris (Best of Division)

CBC News: Venture ‐ The Scandalist The Chris Statuette (best of category)

The Liberation of Holland The Chris Statuette

the fifth estate ‐ Black Dawn: The Next Pandemic The Chris Statuette

Commonwealth Broadcasting Association Awards A War in Words: An Iraqi Family Diary (CBC News: Correspondent) CBA Rolls Royce Award for Exceptional News Feature (Tara Sutton)

Exhibit CDN‐2‐A 1 International Awards 2004 ‐ 2006

News & Current Affairs Programs

CBC Television Network 2006 Awards (continued)

Commonwealth Broadcasting Association Awards CBA Thomson Foundation Award for Journalist of the Year

DOCNZ Film Festival () Braindamadj’d…Take II (The Lens) (CBC Newsworld) Special Mention, Medium Documentary Category

Gabriel Awards Auschwitz: Speaking of the Unspeakable (The National) Gabriel Award ‐Short Feature, National Release

Indecently Exposed, (The Passionate Eye) (WestWind Pictures Ltd/CBC/SCN) Gabriel Award ‐Documentary, National Release

Gracie Allen Awards (Presented by the American Women in Radio & Television) Fasten Your Seatbelts (the fifth estate) Gracie Award – Outstanding Public Affairs

Sex Slaves (The Passionate Eye) Gracie Award – Outstanding Documentary Long Length

The Northern Nurse (Land and Sea) Gracie Award – Outstanding Magazine Program (Local)

Crystal Fear, Crystal Clear Gracie Award – Outstanding Director News Special or Series (Individual Achievement) (Eva Wunderman)

The Japan Prize Braindamadj’d...Take II (The Lens) (Apartment 11 Productions in association with CBC Newsworld) (CBC Newsworld) Grand Prix Japan (best of Festival) Adult Education Prize

2 International Awards 2004 ‐ 2006

News & Current Affairs Programs

CBC Television Network

2006 Awards (continued)

Monte‐Carlo Television Festival CBC News: The National ‐ Land, Gold, and Women Nominee ‐ News Documentary

Moscow Disability Film Festival – “Breaking Down Barriers” (Russia) Braindamadj’d…Take II (The Lens) (CBC Newsworld) Winner – Grand Prix Award

National Press Photographers Association (Best of Photojournalism) Beyond Words: Photographers of War (CBC News: Sunday) Judges' Choice Award

The New York Festivals War Without Borders (the fifth estate) Gold WorldMedal ‐ Best Investigative Report (Longform)

War Photographers (CBC News: Sunday) Silver WorldMedal ‐ Inserts: Human Interest

Strange Destiny (CBC News: The National) Bronze WorldMedal ‐ Social Issues/Current Events

Temple Grandin ‐ The Family Story (Hot Type) Bronze WorldMedal ‐ Human Relations

Superfest XXVI International Disabilities Film Festival (Berkeley, CA) Braindamadj’d…Take II (The Lens) (CBC Newsworld) (Apartment 11 Productions in association with CBC Newsworld) Superfest Excellence Award Superfest Spirit Award

WorldFest Houston Runaway Grooms (ASLI Films Inc./CBC) Gold Remi Award

The Secret Mulroney Tapes Special Jury Award

3 International Awards 2004 ‐ 2006

News & Current Affairs Programs

CBC Television Network

2005 Awards

Banff Television Festival Shake Hands with the Devil: The Journey of Romeo Dallaire (White Pine Pictures in Association: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Societe Radio Canada) Best Canadian Program Rockie Award for Feature Length Documentaries

Hana's Suitcase: An Odyssey of Hope (Passionate Eye) (CBC) Special Jury Prize ‐ Family & Youth Programs

Chicago International Television Competition (Part of the Chicago International Film Festival) A Perfect Fake (Primitive Entertainment Inc) Silver Plaque, Documentary: Social/Political

Columbus International Film & Video Festival The Liberation of Holland The Chris statuette

The Year of the Hunter: The Story of Nanook The Chris statuette

Talking Canadian The Chris statuette

A War in Words: An Iraqi Family Diary (CBC News: Sunday/Correspondent) The Chris statuette

Hana’s Suitcase: An Odyssey of Hope (The Passionate Eye) The Chris statuette

Commonwealth Broadcasting Association Awards Of Crimes and Courage (The National) Exceptional News Coverage

4 International Awards 2004 ‐ 2006

News & Current Affairs Programs

CBC Television Network

2005 Awards (continued)

Gabriel Awards War Photographers (CBC News: Sunday) Gabriel Award

Madiba: The Life and Times of Nelson Mandela Honourable Mention

Gracie Allen Awards (Presented by the American Women in Radio & Television) Hana's Suitcase: An Odyssey of Hope (Passionate Eye) Outstanding Documentary – Mid Length Format

Shedding the Past (CBC News: Canada Now) (CBC Regina) Outstanding Documentary – Short Length Format Market: Local ‐ 26+

Miriam Toews (CBC News: Canada Now) (CBC Winnipeg) Outstanding News Story – Soft News Market: Local ‐ 1‐25

Monte‐Carlo Television Festival Anatomy of a Revolution (CBC News: Correspondent ) Nomination, news documentary category

News and Documentary Emmy Awards The Crash of Flight 111 (The Nature Of Things) Aired in Canada as “The Investigation of Swiss Air 111” (CBC/ Swiss National Television/ PBS) Nomination, Outstanding Investigative Journalism‐Long Form Nomination, Outstanding Individual Achievement In A Craft: Research (Researchers: Howard Green; Cass Sapir; Kurt Schaad)

The New York Festivals Karen Armstrong ‐ The Spiral Staircase: My Climb Out Of Darkness (Hot Type) Gold World Medal ‐ Religious Programs

Of Crimes And Courage (The National) Gold World Medal ‐ Best Public Affairs Program

5 International Awards 2004 ‐ 2006

News & Current Affairs Programs

CBC Television Network

2005 Awards (continued)

The New York Festivals Who's Life Is It Anyway? (the fifth estate) Gold World Medal ‐ Sports and Recreation

Janet Connors: From The Heart Gold World Medal – Biography/Profiles

The Life and Times of Arthur Erickson (Life and Times) Gold World Medal

CBC News: Life and Times Silver World Medal ‐ Biography/Profiles

Legacy: The Halifax Explosion Silver World Medal ‐ History & Society

Robbing The Cradle Of Civilization Silver World Medal ‐ National/International Affairs

Shadows of Stars (Canada Now: Regina) Bronze World Medal – Inserts: Human Interest

The Year Of The Hunter: The Story Of Nanook Bronze World Medal – The Arts

Flesh And The Devil ‐ Impact Of Terror (Witness) Bronze World Medal – Social Issues/Current Events

Poussière mortelle / Deadly Dust (Société Radio‐Canada) Bronze World Medal ‐ Best News Documentary/Special

Overseas Press Club Award Impact of Terror (Witness)

Philadelphia Film Festival Shake Hands with the Devil: The Journey of Romeo Dallaire (Passionate Eye) Documentary Award

6 International Awards 2004 ‐ 2006

News & Current Affairs Programs CBC Television Network

2005 Awards (continued)

Sundance Film Festival Shake Hands With The Devil: The Journey of Romeo Dallaire (The Passionate Eye) World Cinema Documentary Audience Award

Why We Fight (BBC.ARTE/CBC) The American Documentary Grand Jury Prize

WorldFest Houston Impact of Terror (Witness) (Associated Producers/CBC) Special Jury Award

O.com: Cybersex Addiction (The Passionate Eye) (Soapbox Productions in Association with CBC) Platinum Remi Award

The Life and Times of Daniel Igali (Life and Times) Gold Remi Award

2004 Awards

Banff Television Festival The Origins of AIDS (MFP/Pathé Archives/Galafilm/Les Films de la Passerelle/RTBF in association with Channel 4/CBC‐Radio Canada/Canal+ Spain/TSR/TV5 Monde/SBS with the participation of France 2) Rockie Award – Popular Science/Natural History Programs

Canadian Club of New York Arts and Letters Award

Chicago International Television Competition(part of the Chicago Intl. Film Festival) The Origins of AIDS Silver Hugo, Documentary, Science/Nature

7 International Awards 2004 ‐ 2006

News & Current Affairs Programs

CBC Television Network

2004 Awards (continued)

Columbia/Dupont A Toxic Company (the fifth estate) (CBC/Frontline) Silver Baton ‐ under the title "A Dangerous Business"

Columbus International Film & Video Festival The Brand Man (Venture) The Silver Chris

Vasectomy Club (CBC News: Sunday) The Chris statuette

Women's Wrestling (Sports Journal) (CBC Newsworld) The Chris statuette

Karen Armstrong "Spiral Staircase" (Hot Type) The Chris statuette

Gert’s Secret (Rage Against The Darkness) The Chris Statuette

George Polk Award A Toxic Company (the fifth estate) (CBC/Frontline) (Under the title "A Dangerous Business") Award for Labor Reporting

Gracie Allen Awards (Presented by the American Women in Radio & Television) Land and Sea: Built From Scratch (Land and Sea) (Newfoundland & Labrador) Gracie Allen Award for Magazine Show

The Bishop of Bountiful (the fifth estate) Gracie Allen Award ‐ Outstanding Investigative Program

International Emmy Awards The Origins of Aids Nomination – Documentary

8 International Awards 2004 ‐ 2006

News & Current Affairs Programs

CBC Television Network

2004 Awards (continued)

International Health & Medical Media Awards (Freddie Awards) Angela's Journey (CBC News: Sunday/Passionate Eye) Freddie, Oncology Category Founders Award, Michael E. DeBakey, M.D. Award for finest educational entry

Monte‐Carlo Television Festival Deadline ‐ Uncensored Stories of the War (CBC News: Sunday) Nomination Certificate in the news documentary category Special Mention in the Prize of the Red Cross International Committee category

National News & Documentary Emmy Awards A Toxic Company (the fifth estate) (CBC/Frontline) (Under the title "A Dangerous Business") Nominated in the Outstanding Investigative Journalism‐Long Form category

The New York Festivals Witness Gold WorldMedal, Best social issues/current events

The Iceland Experiment (Venture) Gold WorldMedal, Best editing

Hockey Night in the Highlands (Venture) Gold WorldMedal, Best inserts: human interest

A Toxic Company (the fifth estate) Gold WorldMedal, Best investigative report

Searching for Sarah (Zone Libre/CBC News: Sunday) Gold WorldMedal, Best news documentary special

The Iceland Experiment (Venture) Silver WorldMedal, Best inserts/special report

Marina's Art (CBC News: Sunday) Silver WorldMedal, Best arts

A Toxic Company (the fifth estate) (CBC/Frontline) (Under the title "A Dangerous Business") The Peabody Award

9 International Awards 2004 ‐ 2006

News & Current Affairs Programs

CBC Television Network

2004 Awards (continued)

Prix Europa Origins of Aids (Witness) Prix Europa Award for Current Affairs: Television Programme of the Year 2004

The Pulitzer Prize* A Toxic Company (the fifth estate) (CBC//PBS Frontline) *The Pulitzer Prize for public service was awarded to the feature in its newspaper format

10 Video Log CBC News Alison Smith

News

• Auschwitz 60 - January 27, 2005 • New Orleans - November 4, 2005 • Athens Today - August 27, 2004 • Mexico Stalemate - July 3, 2006 • Khadr Guantanamo - January 10, 2006 • Gas Crisis - April 27, 2006 • Campaign Billions - November 2, 2006 • American Civil Liberties Union Suit – December 6, 2005

Time: 3:50

Exhibit CDN-2-B WRITTEN DIRECT TESTIMONY OF

JOAN FISHER

2004—2005 Cable Royalty Distribution Proceeding Docket No. 2007-03 CRB CD 2004-2005

INTRODUCTION

Professional Experience

My name is Joan Fisher of Toronto, Ontario. I was called to the Ontario Bar in 1978, have been an entertainment lawyer since 1980, and legal counsel for Decode Entertainment, Inc., since its incorporation in 1997. I handle all legal aspects of development, financing, production and distribution of Decode’s television series and other audio-visual productions.

I began my career as in-house counsel for the feature film company Quadrant Films Limited during the heyday of public offerings of feature film units in Canada when most Canadian films starred either Canadians Donald Sutherland or Christopher Plummer.

I have specialized in entertainment law since that time, working for the Canadian firm Cassels, Brock and its spin-off boutique arm Peter Steinmetz and Associates (specializing in film, television and music). In 1987, I established my own firm providing counsel to several Canadian television producers and/or distributors of pre-school and youth series. I also rendered legal and business affairs services to Alliance Communications Inc. (now AllianceFilms), which encompassed development, production and distribution of television series, movies-of-the week and feature films. I have taught business and entertainment courses at Toronto based colleges (Ryerson and Centennial) and participated as lecturer and panelist at entertainment conferences in Canada and the U.S.

About Decode

Housed in an historic brick building at the fringe of Toronto’s production district, Decode is a small company that has made a big impact creating and producing programming for young audiences in Canada and the rest of the world. Its subsidiary, Decode Enterprises (UK) Limited is an international television distributor, which licenses Decode’s series worldwide as well as a limited number of series produced by independent producers from Canada, the U.S. and the United Kingdom. In 2006, Decode merged with The Halifax Film Company to create DHX Media Ltd., a public company that trades on London’s AIM exchange and on the TSX in Toronto.

Responsibilities

In 1997, I became Decode’s head of Business Affairs. In its first two years, Decode produced the cut and paste animated series Angela Anaconda, the live action series and co-produced an animated series based on the UK classic children’s book Watership Down. Since then I have acted as legal counsel on the additional 21 television series which Decode

1 has either produced or co-produced as well as preparing and negotiating the acquisition agreements for its development slate. My responsibilities for Decode Enterprises (UK) Ltd. include negotiating license agreements with major broadcasters and distributors as well as acquisition agreements for distribution rights to third party series.

What Makes Decode Distinct?

Decode has become a sought-after supplier and co-producer thanks to our reputation of producing distinctive shows that stand out despite an increasingly competitive market. We hire some of the industry's best creative talent and employ innovative production techniques to ensure that our series are outstanding. Our production division develops a limited slate of programming that typically covers all age ranges, from pre-school to teen programming, to ensure that no Decode series will compete with another on the slate. Our projects are often driven by specific market needs and opportunities. We test our productions at early stages with worldwide customers. This has led to a high number of Decode developed projects going into production and becoming successful worldwide. Decode’s series have won and been nominated for numerous awards including Gemini (Canadian television), BAFTA (British Academy of Film and Television Arts) and Daytime Emmy Awards (US television). A complete list of awards is included in Exhibit CDN-3-A.

Our Productions

Decode specializes in productions for young people – from pre-schoolers to teens. Prominent live action and animated series are Angela Anaconda, Be The Creature, Delilah & Julius, Franny’s Feet, Freaky Stories, King, , Naturally Sadie, Radio Free Roscoe, Rainbow Fish, Save-Ums!, , The Zack Files and other series of interstitials or short programming. Twelve of our full-length television series were international co- productions with the U.K., Spain, , and and co-ventures with the U.S.

Co-Productions include , , , Watership Down, “Blobheads, Clang Invasion, The Hoobs. Decode’s co-ventures are Super Why with Out of the Blue Studios LLC and with MTV Networks. Exhibit CDN-3-B provides short descriptions of several Decode Productions, including the name of any co-producer.

International Success

As indicated previously, Decode’s distribution arm, Decode Enterprises (UK) Limited, distributes all of Decode’s television and interactive content as well as third-party television series. It has concluded almost 1500 television and home entertainment license agreements with more than 300 clients worldwide. In addition to the primary broadcasters, most of Decode’s shows are distributed on terrestrial, pay, pay/cable and satellite throughout the world including the U.K., France, Germany, Italy, Eastern , Australia, , the , South America and Asia. Exhibit CDN-3-A also notes major broadcasters (domestic and international) that the described productions have been licensed to.

2 Canadian Broadcasts 2004-2005

During the period of 2004 to 2005, Angela Anaconda, Be The Creature, The Blobheads, Save ‘Ums (Les Sauvetout!) and Les Hoobs (The Hoobs) and Le Roi C’est Moi (King) were all broadcast on free over-the-air signals specifically the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation or its French counterpart, Radio-Canada. These productions are described in promotional pages attached in Exhibit CDN-3-C and Exhibit CDN-3-B. In addition, I have prepared a short promotional video containing excerpts from these productions. It is attached to my testimony as Exhibit CDN-3-D.

Conclusion

As is the case with many Canadian production companies, Decode generally does not have the budget of a television series fully financed before it commences production. Licenses from Canadian broadcasters cover from approximately 5% to 30% of the budget. The balance of the financing usually consists of government subsidies (called tax credits), grants from industry funds, equity financing, foreign pre-sales, and most often a distribution advance from Decode Enterprises (UK) Limited of approximately 10% to 30% of the budget against anticipated sales interim financed by a Canadian bank. Decode is a small company in a busy production community. We are about a 100 people engaged in a creative industry making a product enjoyed by children and adults around the world. To stay in business Decode needs to exploit revenue from its intellectual property from all sources to repay the distribution advances and allow further investment in television properties. In addition, Decode has a very broad base of moderately budgeted unique children’s and youth programming but does not produce blockbuster prime time programming. For this reason as well, it is important to derive revenue from every source available whether it be major broadcasters, modest licenses in small territories or royalties payable on account of the exploitation of its catalogue.

3

Decode Awards & Recognition

ONTARIO GLOBAL TRADERS AWARD 2002

Winner of the 2002 Provincial Global Traders Award in the Market Expansion – Product category

2002 CANADA EXPORT AWARDS

2002 Winner Canada Export Award, sponsored by The Department of Foreign Affairs and Export Development Canada

BEST MANAGED COMPANIES 2001

2001, Winner of Canada's 50 Best Managed Companies Program, sponsored by Andersen, CIBC, and Queen's School of Business

ANGELA ANACONDA

Winner of the 2002 Alliance for Children & Television Award of Excellence, Animation Category, Ages 6-8. 2002 BAFTA (British Academy of Film and Television Arts) Nomination, International Children’s’ Programme 2001 BAFTA Nomination, International Children’s’ Programme 2002 Gemini Nomination, for Best Animated Program or Series 2001 Gemini Nomination, for Best Animated Program or Series (Canada) Annecy 2000, Awarded Le Grand Prix Annecy 2000 for best TV Animation Programme (France) 2000 Gemini Award, for Best Animated Program or Series or Short Animated Program (Canada) 2000 / 2001 Daytime Emmy Nominations, for Outstanding Special Class Animated Program (U.S.) Festival du Film d’Animation pour la Jeunesse 2000, chosen for official selection (Holland)

BE THE CREATURE

2004 Gold Medal Winner of The Aurora Awards, Nature/Environment 2005 Winner, International Wildlife Film Festival, Best Children’s Series

1

Decode Awards & Recognition

BROMWELL HIGH

2006 British Animation Awards, Best Comedy 2006 Gemini Award, Best Animated Program or Series

THE BLOBHEADS

2004 Winner of The Alliance for Children & Television Award of Excellence, All Genres Category, Ages 3-5 2004 Winner of The Canadian Screenwriters Award, Children/pre-school 2004 Directors Guild of Canada, Nominated for Outstanding Team Achievement in a Television Series, Family 2004 Gemini Nominated, Best 2005 Winner, The Alliance for Children and Television, Ages 6 - 8

FRANNY’S FEET

2004 The Pulcinella Award, Best Television Series for Infants 2004 Sprockets Toronto International Film Festival 2004 Chicago International Children’s Film Festival 2004 Japan Prize Finalist, Early Ages Category 2005 New York Festival Finalist, Children’s Program 2005 Gemini Award, Best Musical Score for an Animated Series 2005 Shaw Rocket Prize Finalist 2006 iParenting Media Award, Television 2006 Chicago International Children’s Film Festival 2007 New York Festival Finalist, Children’s Program 2007 Fort Lauderdale Film Festival - FAB! Films Easter Program

DUDSON

2006 In Your Face: Contemporary Graphic Design, Powerhouse Museum, Australia 2006 Under the Radar, Foundation for Art/Creative Technology, UK 2006 Oz Digital Shorts, Experimenta, Australia 2007 Sprockets Toronto International Children’s Film Festival

2

Decode Awards & Recognition

GIRLSTUFF BOYSTUFF

2004 Gold Medal Winner at The New York Festivals, Youth Program

THE HOOBS

2002 Winner of The Alliance for Children & Television Award of Excellence, All Genres Category, Ages 3-5. 2001 BAFTA (British Academy of Film and Television Arts) Winner, Best Pre-School Programme 2004 Gemini Nominated, Best Pre-School Program or Series and Best Performance in a Pre-School Program or Series

KING

2004 Gemini Nominated, Best Animated Program or Series 2005 Gemini Winner, Best Original Music Score/Animated Program

PLANET SKETCH

2005 Ottawa International Animation Festival 2006 Seoul International Cartoon Animation Festival 2006 Annecy International Animated Film Festival 2006 Nominated, The Pulcinella Award 2006 Viewfinders International Film Festival for Youth

RADIO FREE ROSCOE

2004 Silver Medal Winner, The New York Festivals, Teen Programs 2004 Recommended by the Parents’ Choice Foundation, Ages 9 – 17 yrs. 2004 Directors Guild of Canada, Nominated for Outstanding Team Achievement in a Television Series, Family 2004 Gemini Nominated, Best Children's or Youth Fiction Program or Series and Best Performance in a Children's or Youth Fiction Program or Series 2005 Winner, The Alliance for Children and Television, Ages 9 – 12 2005 Gemini Award, Best Children’s or Youth Fiction Program or Series

3

Decode Awards & Recognition

THE SAVE-UMS!

2003 Recommended by The Parents’ Choice Foundation, Ages 2 – 6 yrs. 2004 Gemini Nominated, Best Pre-School Program or Series 2006 Daytime Emmy Nominated, Outstanding Special Class Animated Series

THE ZACK FILES

2000, TV Guide, Top Ten New Children’s Series by (U.S.), October 21-27, 2002 29th Daytime Emmy Winner, Outstanding Achievement In Sound Mixing 2003 18th Annual Gemini Award, Best Writing in a Children's or Youth's Program or Series, “Zackeo & Juliet” 2004 Winner of The Alliance for Children & Television Award of Excellence, All Genres Category, Ages 9-12

THE LATEST BUZZ

2007 Accolade Award Winner – Award of Excellence. 2009 Vanessa Morgan nominated for Young Hollywood Artist Award for Best Performance in a TV Series (Comedy or Drama) – Leading Young Actress.

CHOP SOCKY CHOOKS

2008 Gemini Awards Winner – Best Animated Program or Series.

SUPERWHY!

2008 Nominated for Daytime Emmy Awards – Preschool Children’s Series

4

Decode Awards & Recognition

SELECTED INTERACTIVE AWARDS

www.undergrads.tv Undergrads Online 2002 winner of Most Popular Website at the 17th annual Gemini Awards

Dan Fill, 2002 Producer of the Year, Canada New Media Awards www.angelaA.com Angela Online 2001 winner of Most Innovative website at the 16th annual Gemini Awards

www.angelaA.com nominated for a Interactive BAFTA (The British Academy of Film and Television Arts), for children’s category. (United Kingdom)

2001 Baddeck International New Media Awards – Best Entertainment Web Site for UNDERGRADS. (Canada)

Selected as Macromedia’s Shockwave Site of the Day (U.S.)

Won three Baddeck International New Media Awards - New Media Award, Best Technical Achievement and honourable mention for Best Entertainment site.

Nominated by the Academy of Canadian Cinema & Television, for “Most Popular Website” in conjunction with the 15th Annual Gemini Awards. http://www.academy.ca/webvote/votes.cfm (Canada)

2005 Nominated by The Alliance for Children and Television for best pre-school website, www.frannysfeet.com

2005 Nominated by the Canadian New Media Awards for Excellence in iTV, www.bethecreature.tv, company of the year, www.decode.tv and Woman of Vision, Diana Arruda.

2008 Nominated by the Canadian New Media Awards for Excellence in Gaming, www.urbanvermin.com

2008 Nominated for a Gemini Award for Excellence in Cross Platform, www.urbanvermin.com

5

Selected DECODE Productions and their Major Broadcasters

Freckle-faced and knock-kneed, Angela is tormented on a regular basis by her arch-nemesis, Nannette Manoir. Angela's allies include the cinnamon swirl-loving Gina Lash, the not-too-swift Johnny Abbati, and the pasty, inhaler-dependent Gordy Rhinehart. Together, armed with wit and determination, the friends combat the daily trials and tribulations of childhood. ANGELA ANACONDA is produced by DECODE Entertainment, in association with C.O.R.E. Digital Pictures.

Major Broadcasters: and CBC (Canada), FOX Family Channel (US), Cartoon Network (Europe), Channel 4 (UK), Super RTL (Germany), France 3, ABC and Mediatrade (Italy)

What does it mean to "be a creature?" Why do animals live as they do and what unique adaptations have they evolved over time that lets them thrive and survive? Naturalists and documentary filmmakers Chris and Martin Kratt explore the biology, physiology, and natural behavior of unique creatures. BE THE CREATURE is produced by DECODE Entertainment Inc. and The Company.

Major Broadcasters: CBC and Tele-Quebec (Canada), The National Geographic Channel (US), National Geographic International (Worldwide Cable/Satellite)

With one flush of the toilet, Billy Barnes's life changed forever. 14-year- old Billy Barnes thought his life was complicated when his baby brother Silas arrived, but now the morphing, mess-making Zerek, Kerek and Derek have come from the Planet Blob to declare that Silas is the Most High Emperor of the Universe! THE BLOBHEADS is a Canada/UK co- production by DECODE Entertainment Inc. and Wark Clements (Scotland).

Major Broadcasters: CBC and (Canada); Nickelodeon (UK, Europe, Australia), Canal J (France), ZDF (Germany)

1

BROMWELL HIGH is set in an under-funded, graffiti-scarred secondary school in south London and follows the exploits of three exceptionally naughty schoolgirls, one maverick headmaster and a bunch of desperate teachers. BROMWELL HIGH is a UK/Canada co-production with Hat Trick Productions.

Major Broadcasters: Teletoon (Canada), Channel 4 (UK)

The CHOP SOCKY CHOOKS are a crack team of Kung Fu Chickens who use a combination of martial arts skills, hi-tech computer wizardry and razor-sharp wits to oppose Dr. Wasabi, an evil mutated piranha and his bodyguard Bubba, a strong but simple-minded albino gorilla. CHOP SOCKY CHOOKS is a Canada/UK co-production between DECODE Entertainment Inc and Ltd.

Major Broadcasters: Teletoon (Canada), Cartoon Network (Worldwide)

CLANG INVASION is a fast-paced, anything-can-happen, roller coaster ride of comedy that has the same attention span as the kids that are in the story. CLANG INVASION was developed by Singapore's Scrawl Studios and the Media Development Authority of Singapore (MDA) in co-production with DECODE, YTV and Agogo Entertainment Ltd

Major Broadcasters: YTV (Canada)

.

2

DELILAH & JULIUS follows the adventures of two stylish teen super spies as they travel the globe stopping covert plots for world domination. They take down sinister villains using their wits and skills, supported by an assortment of super cool gadgets, martial arts training and impeccable killer instincts. DELILAH & JULIUS is a co-production between DECODE Entertainment Inc and Animation Studios.

Major Broadcasters: Teletoon ( Canada), Nickelodeon (Germany) and ABC2.

Dirtgirl’s backyard is full of friends. There’s Scrap Boy, her best friend, a cow punk who’s a whiz with junk, Grubby with her worm’s eye view, Ken the weevil, a super stunt star weevil with an inferiority complex, Roger the Rooster and The Chicks, Hayman the monosyllabic scarecrow, and The Green Thumbs…real kids in real gardens having unreal fun.

Major Broadcasters: BBC

DUDSON'S MODERN TALES is a collection of highly stylized shorts that centre on Dudson, an off-beat, absurd cab driver, along with his friends who are an eclectic cast of characters. DUDSON is about getting through the day with all of life's frustrations and small victories. It's Dudson's world and Normal is the New Weird.

Major Broadcasters: BITE TV, ONE STOP Network (Canada)

3

Life is weird - full of the odd, the spooky and the inexplicable. Off-kilter and funny, THE ZACK FILES follows Zack Greenburg and the out- of-this-world things that keep happening to him. He's an accidental young "Fox Mulder" with an interesting crew of friends who join him in his bizarre, paranormal adventures. Based on the book series, "The Zack Files," by Dan Greenburg. THE ZACK FILES is produced by DECODE Entertainment Inc., in association with YTV, A Corus Entertainment Company, with EM TV and Merchandising AG and RCN Entertainment. Major Broadcasters: YTV and SRC (Canada), ZDF (Germany), and Channel 4 (UK), France 3 and Disney Channel (France)

WATERSHIP DOWN is a remarkable tale about the friendship, survival and heroism of a group of rabbits who leave their endangered warren in search of a new home. The rabbits are driven by a vision of a Promised Land. WATERSHIP DOWN is a co-production with UK-based Alltime Entertainment. Major broadcasters: YTV, CBC, VRAK (Canada), ITV (UK), Super RLT (Germany) and Buena Vista Home Video

This is a story about two brothers. Once best of friends, now best of enemies. ABE and KEN are two brothers who know their way around an average pile of trash. Maybe it's because they love garbage the way people love their morning coffee. Or maybe it's because they've eaten trash their entire lives. Or maybe it's because they're raccoons.

Major Broadcasters: YTV, Europe

4

THE HOOBS are five furry 'finder outers' from Hoobland: Iver, Hubba Hubba, Groove, Roma and Tula, whose mission is the search for knowledge about all things Earthly. The Hoobs is a series of fun educational programmes for a pre-school audience, using a mixture of puppetry, animation, stock footage and real children performers. Jim Henson's THE HOOBS is a co-production with DECODE for Channel 4 in the UK.

Major broadcasters: TVO (Canada), Channel 4 (UK)

SUPER WHY! is the first superhero series that helps children through interactive fairytale adventures! Whyatt Beanstalk, along with his best friends Red Riding Hood, The Princess & the Pea, the Littlest Pig - and the Home Viewer, magically transform into Super Why and the Super Readers. They jump into classic and original stories to find answers to questions about everyday problems and use special reading powers to save the day!

Major Broadcasters: CBC (Canada)

Set in the Bay of Neptune, RAINBOW FISH is the story of a glittery fish named Rainbow who is full of mischief and adventure. Rainbow is your typical kid, except scalier! He has a thirst for adventure and a hunger for kelp. Each episode follows the escapades of Rainbow and his school of fishy friends including Blue, Sea Filly, Stingo and Chomper. RAINBOW FISH is a DECODE co-production in partnership with Sony Wonder and EM.TV & Merchandising AG

Major Broadcasters: TVO (Canada), HBO (US)

5

Aardman Animation and DECODE Entertainment present PLANET SKETCH, featuring a quirky collection of madcap new characters brought to life with a unique mix of comedy and charm. With their outrageous behaviour and unforgettable catchphrases, these offbeat and memorable creations are destined to become schoolyard favourites. PLANET SKETCH is a Canada/UK co-production between DECODE Entertainment Inc and Aardman Animations Ltd.

Major Broadcasters : Teletoon ( Canada), ITV ( UK), ARD (Germany) and France 3

A pug who digs through the floor, a cat that leaves trails of "presents" wrapped in a bow, and a chicken named Heedley who will peck you in the eye! Follow the ridiculous antics of the Naughty Naughty Pets as Windywoo tries to keep them in line and out of trouble.

Major Broadcasters: CBC (Canada), Cartoon Network (US), Canal + (France)

With high school in full steam and her friends branching out, Sadie hopes that she has finally gotten to the bottom of it all. Scientifically speaking, of course. Still a budding naturalist, Sadie is more passionate than ever about global and ecological changes. But with her various romantic entanglements, lively array of friends and older brother, Hal, she's got more than her share of wild to sort out.

Major Broadcasters: The Family Channel (Canada), The Disney Channel (US), Nickelodeon ( UK), France 2

6

THE LATEST BUZZ is a half-hour live action which centers around five 14 year-old writers' who work at a youth magazine during 8th period at school. Follow Rebecca, Michael, Noah, Amanda and Wilder as they learn about the fast-paced world of publishing, all while living the fast-paced life of a teenager.

Major Broadcasters: Family Channel (Canada)

Shortly after moving into a new house, 12-year-old Russell discovers something weird under his bed - a trap door leading to the fantastic world of Under! Russell is crowned King of Under, and boy, does his kingdom need help! KING is a Funbag Animation Studios Inc./DECODE Entertainment Inc. Production

Major broadcasters: Family Channel (Canada), ABC (Australia), France 5 and Nick UK

It happened to a friend of a friend of mine...

FREAKY STORIES are 140 of the weirdest, eerie, "did that really happen?" urban myths that will leave you with a chill running down your spine. FREAKY STORIES is produced by DECODE Entertainment Inc., Sound Ventures Productions Ltd., Funbag Animation

Major broadcasters: YTV and VRAK (Canada), FOX Family Channel (US), ABC

.

7

Where will my feet take me today? Each 11-minute episode sees Franny off on a different adventure. She puts on the fisherman's boots and lands on a trawler in the middle of the Atlantic. She slips on a pair of hiking boots and is off on an African adventure. Franny's adventures go well beyond the day-to-day world of school and home life. FRANNY’S FEET lets children explore the bigger world and shows them that you are never too small or too young to be a big help.

Major broadcasters: PBS (US), Family Channel and Tele-Quebec (Canada), Milkshake Block on Channel Five (UK), TELETOON (France), France 5, ABC (Australia) and RAI (Italy)

8

Decode Entertainment 2004- 2005 Video Log

Program Clips from:

King Be the Creature The Save-Ums! Angela Anaconda The Blobheads The Hoobs

Time: 4:20

CDN-3-D

The Value of Canadian Programming to Cable Systems In the United States: 2004-2005

to be submitted to

The Copyright Royalty Judges

by

Gary T. Ford Emeritus Professor of Marketing Kogod College of Business Administration American University

and

Debra J. Ringold Dean and JELD-WEN Professor of Free Enterprise Atkinson Graduate School of Management Willamette University

May 2009

EXHIBIT CDN-4-A

The Value of Canadian Programming to Cable Systems In the United States: 2004-2005

by

Gary T. Ford and Debra J. Ringold1

I. INTRODUCTION

This report discusses the objectives, methodology, and results of two surveys of United States cable system operators who retransmitted Canadian television stations as distant signals during 2004 and 2005. These studies were commissioned by the Canadian Claimants Group and were conducted annually each of these years.

This report includes the following four sections: II. Executive Summary III. Methodology IV. Results V. Conclusion

1 Resumes for Dr. Ford and Dr. Ringold are provided in Appendix 1.

1

II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

OBJECTIVES:

1. The primary objective of this research was to estimate the value of Canadian programming on Canadian distant signals retransmitted by Form 3 cable system operators in the United States.

2. A second, and less important, objective was to determine the relative importance of other types of programming on three different types of distant signals: or TBS; Canadian stations; and United States independent stations.

METHODOLOGY:

3. In each of the years 2004 and 2005, a survey was conducted of the eligible population of Form 3 cable systems retransmitting either a distant English-language or distant French-language Canadian signal. The response rates were 54% and 62%, respectively. These relatively high response rates make nonresponse bias unlikely.

4. The surveys were conducted with the persons responsible for deciding which distant signals their cable systems retransmit. On average, respondents were in this position at his/her cable system approximately six years and thus, were experienced in making these decisions (Table 4). Participants were also queried as to their program budget responsibilities. Ninety-two percent of the respondents identified themselves as the individual responsible for making program budget decisions or recommendations.

5. The surveys asked about the value of seven different types of programming carried on a Canadian signal randomly chosen from those Canadian signals retransmitted by the cable system: (1) live professional and college team sports, excluding games; (2) Canadian-produced news, public

2

affairs, religious, and documentary programs; (3) U.S. syndicated series, movies, and specials; (4) sports programming such as the Olympics, Canadian Football League games, skating, skiing, tennis, and auto racing; (5) Canadian-produced series, movies, arts and variety shows, and specials; (6) Canadian-produced children’s programming; and (7) other programming. This approach allowed a signal-specific determination of the relative value of Canadian-produced programming compared to programming produced by other claimants.

6. Similar categories of programming shown on a randomly chosen or cable network TBS and a randomly chosen U.S. independent station carried by the respondents' systems were also evaluated to reduce the chances that respondents would guess the survey purpose or sponsor.

7. While the categories used to describe superstation or cable network TBS, Canadian, and independent programming are reasonably analogous, differences due to the Canadian network programming offered by Canadian signals do exist. In addition, questionnaire forms reflect the language in which Canadian programming is retransmitted by a particular signal.

RESULTS:

8. For the years 2004 and 2005, respondents estimated that Canadian-produced programming accounted for approximately 60% and 60%, respectively, of the value of all programming shown on Canadian signals (Table 1).

9. For these same years, live professional and college team sports shown on the Canadian signals were valued at approximately 27% and 30%, respectively (Table 1).

10. U.S. syndicated series and movies shown on the Canadian signals were valued, during these years, at approximately 13% and 10%, respectively (Table 1).

3

Summary of Results for Canadian Signals

Programming Category 2004 2005

Canadian-produced programming 60% 60%

Live professional and college team sports 27% 30%

U.S. syndicated series and movies 13% 10%

Other programming 0% 0%

11. For superstations, live professional and college sports were valued at approximately 26% and 35%, for the years 2004 and 2005 (Table 2). For independent stations, live professional and college sports were valued at approximately 22% in 2004 and 26% in 2005 (Table 3).

12. Movies and syndicated series were valued at approximately 41% and 45% on superstations in 2004 and 2005 (Table 2). Movies and syndicated series were valued at approximately 40% and 35% on independent stations during the same period (Table 3). Both superstation and independent station evaluations are substantially higher than the approximately 13% and 10% values reported for U.S. movies and syndicated series on Canadian signals (Table 1).

CONCLUSION:

13. In our opinion, these results indicate that cable system operators who retransmit Canadian signals do so primarily for their unique Canadian programming, but also value the live professional and college team sports carried on these signals. U.S. syndicated shows and movies on Canadian signals appear to have less value to cable system operators.

During this period, Canadian programming constituted about 60% of the total programming value provided by imported Canadian signals.

4

III. METHODOLOGY

From a methodological perspective, the survey objectives of estimating the value of Canadian programming required attention to three important factors. First, during the period under study, Canadian signals were retransmitted by up to 59 eligible cable systems. Because the annual populations of cables systems are relatively small, it was important to develop a methodology that would maximize the number of completed interviews. Relatively high response rates make significant bias in the results due to nonresponse unlikely. Therefore, maximizing the survey response rates was important.

Second, any survey runs the risk of producing biased results if respondents detect the purpose of the survey or guess the survey sponsor. For this reason, it was important to design the survey questionnaire and use interviewing techniques that masked the purpose of the survey and its sponsor.

Third, Canadian signals carry Canadian programming as well as programming copyrighted by other claimants participating in the cable copyright royalty distribution proceedings. Thus, it was necessary to develop an approach that would allow us to estimate the value of Canadian programming relative to other programming carried on the signal. The methodological decisions made regarding each of these issues are discussed below.

Procedures used to increase survey response rates. A screening study of Form 3 cable systems known to have retransmitted Canadian programming during 2004 and 2005 identified 59 and 52 eligible cable systems, respectively. If cable systems were found to retransmit both an English- and French-language Canadian signal, the system was interviewed with the French-language version of the questionnaire, due to the smaller number of French-language signals. Because these populations were small, it was necessary to attempt to interview respondents from each of these cable systems.

5

No respondent was interviewed more than twice in one year about retransmitting Canadian signals. This decision was made to reduce both the chance of guessing the purpose of the survey and to minimize redundancy in responses. Thus, to be eligible for the 2004 and 2005 studies, Form 3 systems had to have carried Canadian signals in the study year and the respondent could not participate in more than two interviews. To increase response rates the following procedures were used:

1. Each of the cable systems was contacted by telephone to verify the name of the person (or persons) responsible for “deciding which television stations your cable system offers” for their cable system. A copy of the screening form that was used for these telephone contacts is attached as Appendix 2.

2. The person responsible for deciding which distant signals to retransmit for cable systems importing a Canadian signal was then faxed an appropriate survey notification letter. During the years 2004 and 2005, this letter informed him/her that an interviewer would be calling in the next week regarding a study concerned with “…factors important to cable systems in their decisions to carry television signals.” It also mentioned that the interview would take “less than ten minutes” and that they would be paid a $75.00 honorarium. Those responsible for responding for two cable systems were promised a $150.00 honorarium. A copy of this notification letter is provided in Appendix 3.

3. The survey research contractor, Westat2, was instructed to continue attempts to contact potential respondents until the interview was completed or the respondent definitely refused. Virtually all of the completed interviews were accomplished during the first or second direct communication with the respondent. Other call attempts were associated with efforts to identify, reach, and/or schedule the qualified respondent. To ensure standardization in the interviews, Westat assigned the same

2 Westat served as the research contractor in 2004 and 2005. In 2004, it was the third largest marketing research organization in the United States. Westat is known for its expertise in executing survey research projects for agencies of the federal government and a variety of large commercial clients (Honomichl 2005).

6

interviewer to complete all interviews in both years. Westat personnel were experienced in surveying professional and managerial participants. Because of the efforts made to identify a specific person to interview, the survey notification letter, the honorarium, and the efforts made to conveniently schedule interviews, overall response rates were relatively high. Response rates were 54% and 62% for 2004 and 2005, respectively. These response rates make nonresponse bias less likely. Details concerning the response rates are provided in Appendix 4.

Methodology used to disguise purpose of surveys. It is well known that survey answers may contain bias if the respondent can guess the purpose of the survey or its sponsor. To prevent that type of bias, four safeguards were built into the research design:

1. At no time was the survey sponsor identified or the purpose of the study conveyed to potential respondents or to the interviewer at Westat. The survey notification letter was sent from Westat on its stationery. Since the surveys were "double-blind," the chances that the interviewer would inadvertently cue a respondent to the survey purpose or sponsor was minimal.

2. To reduce the likelihood that the respondent would guess the purpose of the survey and to reduce redundancy in responses, it was decided to limit the number of interviews conducted with any one respondent to two in a given year.

3. An attempt was made to ask each respondent about the value of programming on up to three types of retransmitted distant signals actually carried by the respondent's systems, i.e., a superstation such as WPIX (or the cable network TBS if we were unable to confirm carriage of a distant superstation), a Canadian programming station, and an independent station. In the vast majority of cases, respondents evaluated programming on two or three different signals. In 2004, every respondent evaluated programming on at least two different signals, while in only four cases in 2005 did a respondent evaluate a Canadian signal alone. Even in these few cases, respondents were asked about superstation and independent station carriage in the

7

signal verification section of the questionnaire. Thus, it is unlikely that respondents knew whether the survey was intended to concentrate on any one type of signal or on multiple and different types of signals.

4. The surveys asked about six different types of programming carried on each signal (plus an “other” category). For the United States superstations and independent stations, the programming categories were: (1) live professional and college team sports; (2) news, public affairs, children's programs, and talk shows produced by and shown on the station; (3) syndicated shows, series, and specials other than children's or religious programs; (4) movies; (5) syndicated children's programming; (6) devotional and religious programming; and (7) other programming.

For the Canadian signals, programming categories were: (1) live professional and college team sports, excluding Canadian Football League games; (2) Canadian network- and station-produced news, public affairs, religious, and documentary programs; (3) U.S. syndicated series, movies, and specials; (4) Canadian-produced sports programming such as the Olympics, Canadian Football League games, skating, skiing, tennis, and auto racing; (5) Canadian-produced series, movies, arts and variety shows, and specials not including children's programming; (6) Canadian-produced children's programming; and (7) other programming.

Thus, each respondent was asked about six specific and different types of programming carried on, for most respondents, each of two or three different types of signals. This decreases the chances that respondents would ascertain that the surveys were concerned with the value of Canadian-produced programming.

In sum, four approaches were used to guard against respondents guessing the purpose of the surveys. First, the surveys were "double-blind." That is, neither the interviewer nor the respondents knew the purpose or sponsor of the survey. Second, no respondent was interviewed more than twice in one year about retransmitting Canadian signals reducing both the chance of guessing the purpose of the survey and redundancy in responses. Third,

8 the vast majority of respondents were asked to evaluate the value of different types of programming on at least two retransmitted distant signals. This decreases the likelihood that respondents would guess that the focus was on the Canadian signal. Finally, the respondents were asked about the value of a variety of specific types of programming on each signal. The fact that the six specific programming categories were similar (although not identical) across signals further decreases the likelihood that respondents would detect the interest in Canadian-produced programming.

Neither we, nor the supervisors, observed any inquiry associated with Canadian programming, Canadian stations, or the Canadian Claimants as interviews were monitored in 2004 or 2005. Moreover, the interviewers reported no inquiries associated with Canadian programming, Canadian stations, or the Canadian Claimants. Over the years, participants rarely inquired or speculated as to the sponsor or purpose of these surveys. When participants did comment or inquire, typically they volunteered "the government" or a competing cable company as the likely sponsor. Respondents sometimes volunteered comments indicating that other survey research organizations had recently contacted their cable systems. With increasing frequency, potential respondents refusing to participate cite “corporate” policies developed to address numerous requests for management participation in similar studies.

Approach used to distinguish unique value of Canadian programming. The entire questionnaire was developed to provide an unbiased estimate of the unique value of Canadian-produced programming:

1. The way in which the value of programming on a signal was assessed was through the use of a 100-point constant sum scale. The respondent was asked to "assume the total value of all the programming now carried on ______3 equals 100 percent. I'll read a list of seven different program categories. I'll give you a chance to think

3 When this question was read during the interview, these dashes were replaced by the signal’s call letters.

9

about each one and jot them down if you wish. Then, I will read the list again and get your estimates of each category's value. The sum must total to 100 percent.” Examples of the survey questionnaires4 are provided in Appendix 5.

After reading the list of programming categories, the interviewer asked, “What percentage, if any, of the total value of programming carried on ______would you say is accounted for by . . . .?"

It should be noted that the purpose of the 100-point constant sum scale was clear to respondents and easy for them to use. The relative value of programming carried on each of the specific signals evaluated was clearly communicated by the points they assigned to each category. Thus, this scale is likely to provide an accurate measure of their perceptions of the value of different types of programming on each of the specific signals evaluated.

2. To eliminate effects on responses due to the order in which questions were asked, the order in which the various types of programming content was evaluated was varied systematically.

Thus, several steps were taken to increase confidence that the perceptions of the value of Canadian programming were being measured accurately. The value of categories of programming was assessed by having respondents allocate 100 points across programming categories. The purpose of the 100-point scale was clear to respondents and easy for them to use, and thus, responses are likely to accurately reflect their perceptions of the value of different types of programming. To eliminate order bias, the starting point for asking the series of questions on programming value was varied across respondents.

Summary of methodological decisions. In developing a research methodology to assess the value of Canadian-produced programming, we attempted to design a survey instrument that was free from biased or leading questions, to develop an approach which would provide the

4 Questionnaire forms reflect the language of the Canadian programming on a particular retransmitted signal.

10 maximum number of respondents while minimizing the biases which can occur when respondents and interviewers know the purpose of the research, and to develop questions that were relevant given the issues under investigation and simultaneously, understandable to respondents. The results follow.

IV. RESULTS

This Results section is divided into three categories: (1) a discussion of the value of Canadian programming; (2) presentation of findings regarding programming on superstations and independent stations; and (3) summary information about the work experience respondents have had making programming decisions for cable systems.

The value of Canadian programming.5 Table 1 summarizes the respondents' perceptions of the value of the different types of programming shown on Canadian signals for the years 2004 and 2005.

There are three important findings in Table 1:

1. For the years 2004 and 2005, Canadian programming was valued at approximately 60% and 60%, respectively, of the total value of the programming shown on Canadian signals.

For 2004, the sum of the approximate values assigned to categories of Canadian programming (i.e., news, public affairs, religious, and documentary programs [23%], Canadian-produced sports programming [17%], Canadian-produced series, movies, arts and variety shows, and specials [11%], and Canadian-produced children's programming [8%]) is approximately 60%.

5 In addition to the findings discussed in detail here, Table 5 reports the average value of programming shown on English-language Canadian signals. Table 6 reports the average value of programming shown on French- language Canadian signals. Table 7 reports the average value of programming shown on Canadian signals when Signal A was a superstation and/or Signal C was an independent station or when a Canadian signal was evaluated alone. Table 8 reports the average value of programming shown on Canadian signals when TBS served as signal A or C. All tables are for years 2004 and 2005 and can be found in Appendix 6.

11

For 2005, the sum of the approximate values assigned to categories of Canadian programming (i.e., news, public affairs, religious, and documentary programs [17%], Canadian-produced sports programming [21%], Canadian-produced series, movies, arts and variety shows, and specials [13%], and Canadian-produced children's programming [9%]) is approximately 60%.

2. For the years 2004 and 2005, live professional and college team sports, excluding Canadian Football League games, shown on Canadian signals were valued at approximately 27% and 30%, respectively.

3. For the years 2004 and 2005, U.S. syndicated series, movies, and specials contributed approximately 13% and 10%, respectively, to the value of the programming shown on Canadian signal.

The results reported in Table 1 have several implications. The first and most obvious is that most cable operators appear to be well aware of the variety of programming available on the Canadian signal and able to assign value to the different components of the signal. Second, the value of the Canadian-produced programming (on average, approximately 60%) is substantially more than the value of live professional and college team sports, excluding Canadian Football League games (on average, approximately 29%). Third, the value of Canadian-produced programming (on average, approximately 60%) is substantially more than the value of U.S. syndicated series, movies, and specials (on average, approximately 11%).

The value of programming on super- and independent stations. The survey results for the values assigned to different types of programming shown on superstations and independent stations are summarized in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. The important findings from these tables are as follows:

12

1. For superstations and TBS, live professional and college team sports were valued at approximately 26% and 35%, respectively, during the years 2004 and 2005. For independent stations, live professional and college team sports were valued at approximately 22% and 26% during the same years.

Thus, live professional and college team sports were valued, on average, at approximately 30% for superstations, approximately 24% for independent stations, and approximately 29% on Canadian signals.

2. Local news, public affairs, children's programs, and talk shows produced by, and shown exclusively on, the station were valued at approximately 14% and 8% on the superstations and approximately 19% and 15% on the independent stations, respectively, during the years 2004 and 2005. Using a slightly different category, the comparable Canadian signal values were approximately 23% and 17% during the same years.

Thus, local news, public affairs, children's programs, and talk shows produced by, and shown exclusively on, the station were valued, on average, at approximately 11% on the superstations and approximately 17% on the independent stations. Using a slightly different category, the comparable Canadian signal value was, on average, approximately 20%.

3. Syndicated shows, series, and specials other than children's or religious programs on the superstations were valued at approximately 21% and 21% respectively, for the years 2004 through 2005. For the same years, movies on superstations were valued at approximately 20% and 25%.

On the independent stations syndicated shows, series, and specials other than children's or religious programs were valued at approximately 23% and 23%, and movies were valued at approximately 16% and 12%.

13

Thus, the total value, on average, for movies and syndicated series was approximately 43% on the superstations and approximately 37% on the independent stations. For the Canadian signals, U.S. movies and syndicated series were combined into one category. On average, this category was valued at approximately 11%. Thus, there are substantial differences in the value of movies and syndicated series relative to other superstation, independent, and Canadian signal programming. Cable operators perceive U.S. syndicated series and movies shown on Canadian television as providing much less value than the same type of programming shown on U.S. stations.

4. Devotional and religious programming was valued at about 6% and 4% on the superstations and at about 9% and 3% on the independent stations, respectively, during the years 2004 and 2005. There is no comparable category for Canadian signals.

These results suggest that the value of Canadian signal resides primarily in Canadian- produced programming for two reasons. First, the total value of Canadian-produced programming (on average, about 60%) exceeds the value of professional and college team sports (on average, about 29%) on Canadian signals. Second, U.S. movies and syndicated series are valued, on average, at approximately 11% on Canadian signals as compared to 43% on the superstations and 37% on the independent stations. This 11% value of U.S. movies and syndicated series is substantially lower than the 60% total value of Canadian- produced programming on Canadian signals and demonstrates that U.S. programming is not a substantial factor in cable system operators' decisions to import a Canadian signal.

Work experience of respondents. Table 4 summarizes what we learned about the work experience of the respondents to the 2004 and 2005 surveys. The important point from Table 4 is that the respondents are quite experienced. That is, the average respondent had worked in the cable television industry for about 14 years and had been responsible for deciding which distant signals to retransmit for about six years. Therefore, these respondents should provide an accurate estimate of the value of Canadian produced programming.

14

V. CONCLUSIONS

In our opinion, these results indicate that cable system operators retransmit the Canadian signals primarily for their unique Canadian programming rather than for live professional and college team sports or U.S. syndicated series and movies already available on U.S. television.

The value of Canadian programming greatly exceeds that of live professional and college team sports and U.S. syndicated series and movies. During this period, Canadian programming constituted about 60% of the total programming value provided by imported Canadian signals.

15

Table 1

The Average Value of Programming Shown on Canadian Signals

2004 2005 Std Std Mean Deviation Mean Deviation Live professional and college team sports, excluding 27.16 18.41 29.91 18.51 Canadian Football League games.

Canadian-produced news, public affairs, religious, and documentary programs. This includes both 23.25 17.58 17.34 11.22 Canadian network- and station-produced programs. U.S. syndicated series, movies and specials. 12.75 7.34 9.56 8.85

Canadian-produced sports programming such as the Olympics, Canadian League games, skating, 17.34 6.58 21.31 11.68 skiing, tennis and auto racing.

Canadian produced series, movies, arts and variety shows, and specials. This does not include 11.22 6.81 12.56 9.09 children's programming.

Canadian-produced children's programming. 8.13 4.70 9.16 8.08 Other programming. 0.16 0.88 0.16 0.88

Total 100.01 100.00

Total value of Canadian-produced programming. 59.94 60.37

Respondents 32 32

Table 2

The Average Value of Programming Shown on Superstations

2004 2005 Std Std Mean Deviation Mean Deviation Live professional and college team sports. 26.31 14.27 35.04 21.61

Station-produced programs shown exclusively on the superstation. This includes local news, public 14.28 9.59 8.11 8.34 affairs, children's programs, and talk shows hosted by the station's own personalities.

Syndicated shows, series, and specials other than children's 21.16 11.69 20.61 11.74 or religious programs.

Movies. 20.06 9.39 24.75 15.54

Syndicated children's programming. 12.31 6.88 7.32 5.92

Devotional and religious programming. 5.56 4.59 3.82 6.16

Other programming. 0.31 1.77 0.36 1.31

Total 99.99 100.01

Respondents 32 28

Table 3

The Average Value of Programming Shown on Independent Stations

2004 2005 Std Std Mean Deviation Mean Deviation

Live professional and college team sports. 22.31 20.48 26.36 29.76

Station-produced programs shown exclusively on the independent station. This includes local news, public affairs, children's 18.85 18.05 15.45 14.22 programs, and talk shows hosted by the station's own personalities.

Syndicated shows, series, and specials other than children's or 23.46 8.51 22.73 18.08 religious programs.

Movies. 16.15 10.44 11.82 9.29

Syndicated children's programming. 9.23 6.72 7.73 6.07

Devotional and religious programming. 8.85 10.03 3.18 7.51

Other programming. 1.15 4.16 12.73 27.33

Total 100.00 100.00

Respondents 13 11

Table 4

Cable Television Experience of Survey Respondents

2004 2005 Std Std Mean Deviation Mean Deviation Years responsible for deciding which distant television stations 6.06 4.81 6.09 4.46 present system carries.

Years in present job. 5.81 3.88 5.59 4.34

Years worked for present cable system. 8.69 6.93 8.56 5.51

Years worked in cable television industry. 14.19 9.97 13.25 8.60

Age of respondent. 45.31 16.65 46.94 19.05

Respondents 32 32

Gary T. Ford Page 1

GARY T. FORD

5310 Hampden Lane Bethesda, MD 20814 Tele: (301) 654-3111 Mobile: (301) 706-0017 [email protected]

EDUCATION Ph.D., Marketing, STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT BUFFALO, Buffalo, NY, 1973. M.B.A., Marketing, STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT BUFFALO, Buffalo, NY, 1968. B.B.A., Accounting, CLARKSON COLLEGE, Potsdam, NY, 1966.

ACADEMIC/PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY, Kogod School of Business, Washington, D.C., Emeritus Professor of Marketing, 2008. Professor of Marketing, 1985-2007. Chairman of Marketing, 1989-94, 1999-2001, 2004, 2006-2007. CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN, Department of Applied Economics, Leuven, , 1991-1992 Visiting Professor of Marketing UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND, College of Business and Management Chairman, Faculty of Marketing, 1980-1985 Associate Professor of Marketing, 1978-1985 Assistant Professor of Marketing, 1973-1978 , Bureau of Economics, 1979-1980 Visiting Marketing Professor, Division of

Gary T. Ford Page 2

PUBLICATIONS

Refereed Journal Publications 1) “Effects of Donor Recruitment Methods on Population Responses,” with E.L. Wallace, Transfusion, pp. 159-164 (March-April 1975). 2) “A Study of Prices and Market Shares in the Computer Mainframe Industry,” with B.T. Ratchford, Journal of Business, pp. 194-218 (April 1976). 3) “Some Relationships of States’ Characteristics to the Passage of Consumer Legislation,” Journal of Consumer Affairs, pp. 177-182 (Summer 1977). 4) “Perceptions of Uncertainty Within A Buying Task Group,” with R.E. Spekman, Industrial Marketing Management, pp. 395-403 (December 1977). 5) “Adoption of Policy by the States: Some Empirical Perspectives,” Journal of Marketing Research,” pp. 125-134 (February 1978). 6) “A Study of Prices and Market Shares in the Computer Mainframe Industry: Reply,” with B.T. Ratchford, Journal of Business, pp. 125-135 (January 1979). 7) “Evaluation of Programs,” with P.N. Bloom, Journal of Consumer Research, pp. 270-279 (December 1979). 8) “Marketing and Marketing Research for Information ,” with P. Wasserman, Journal of Library Administration, pp. 27-31 (Fall 1982). 9) “Viewer Miscomprehension of Televised Communications: A Comment,” with R. Yalch, Journal of Marketing, pp. 27-31 (Fall 1982). Reprinted in Mass Communication Review Yearbook Vol. 4, E. Wartella, D.C. Whitney and S. Windall (eds.), Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, pp. 145-150 (1983). 10) “Unit Pricing Ten Years Later: A Replication,” with D.A. Aaker, Journal of Marketing, pp. 118-122 (Winter 1983). 11) “Recent Developments in FTC Policy on Deception,” with J.E. Calfee, Journal of Marketing, 82-103 (July 1986). 12) “Inferential Beliefs in Consumer Evaluations: An Assessment of Alternative Processing Strategies,” with R.A. Smith, Journal of Consumer Research, pp. 363-371 (December 1987). 13) “Consumer Skepticism of Advertising Claims: Testing Hypotheses from Economics of Information,” with D.B. Smith and J.L. Swasy, Journal of Consumer Research, pp. 433-441 (March 1990). 14) “Normative Values for the Beck Anxiety Inventory, Fear Questionnaire, Penn State Worry Questionnaire and Social Phobia an Anxiety Inventory,” with M. Gillis, D. Haaga and A.F. Ford, Psychological Assessment, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 450-455 (1995). Gary T. Ford Page 3

15) “Can Interpret Nutrition Information in the Presence of a Health Claim? A Laboratory Investigation,” with M. Hastak, A. Mitra and D.J. Ringold, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 16-27 (1996). 16) “Informing Buyers of Risks: An Analysis of the Marketing and Regulation of All-Terrain Vehicles,” with M.B. Mazis, Journal of Consumer Affairs, pp. 90- 123 (Summer 1996). 17) “Can the Educationally Disadvantaged Interpret the FDA-Mandated Nutrition Facts Panel in the Presence of an Implied Health Claim,” with M. Hastak, A. Mitra and D. J. Ringold, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 106-117 (Summer 1999). 18) “Consumer Search for Information in the Digital Age: An Empirical Study of Pre-Purchase Search for Automobiles,” with L. Klein, Journal of Interactive Marketing, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 1-22 (Summer 2003). 19) “Application of Research on Rates to the Estimation of the Financial Impact of Prospective Product Defects,” (with D. Scheffman and D. Weiskopf), Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, pp. 130-141 (Fall 2004) 20) “The Impact of the Daubert Decision on Survey Research Used in Litigation,” Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, pp. 234-252, Fall 2005. (The members of the Editorial Review Board voted this article to receive the “Kinnear Award,” as the best article published in JPPM from 2003-05.) Refereed and Special Session, Proceedings Publications 1) “A Multivariate Investigation of Market Structure,” refereed, Combined Proceedings of the American Marketing Association, pp. 177-182 (1974). 2) “The Status of Consumer Behavior: Some Empirical Perspectives,” with P.G. Kuehl and R.F. Dyer, refereed, Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 2, pp. 51- 61 (1975). 3) “Classifying and Measuring Deceptive Advertising: An Experimental Approach,” with P.G. Kuehl and O. Reksten, refereed, Combined Proceedings of the American Marketing Association, pp. 493-497 (1975). 4) “Public Policy, The Sherman Act and the IBM Antitrust Case,” with B.T. Ratchford, refereed, Combined Proceedings of the American Marketing Association, pp. 593-596 (1975). 5) “A Functional Analysis of Macro and Micro Marketing Systems,” with W. Nickels, referred, Proceedings of the Southern Marketing Association, pp. 76- 79 (1975). 6) “Measuring the Impact of Consumer Survival Kit: Some Preliminary Results,” with P.N. Bloom and J.W. Harvey, refereed, Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 3, pp. 388-391 (1976). Gary T. Ford Page 4

7) “Consumer Research and Public Policy Formation: The Case of Truth in Contributions,” with P.G. Kuehl and P.N. Bloom, refereed, Combined Proceedings of the American Marketing Association, pp. 445-450 (1976). 8) “An Assessment of the Consumer Protection Act of 1975,” refereed, Combined Proceedings of the American Marketing Association, pp. 209-212 (1976). 9) “A Multivariate Analysis of State Consumerism Policy,” refereed, Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Institute for Decision Sciences, pp. 211- 213 (1976). 10) “The Promotion of Medical and Legal Services,” with P.G. Kuehl, refereed, Proceedings of the American Marketing Association, pp. 39-44 (1977). 11) “Consumer Protection Agencies: Their Budgets and Activities,” refereed, Proceedings of the American Marketing Association, pp. 93-96 (1978). 12) “Box-Jenkins Analysis of a Retail Sales Intervention,” with F.B. Alt, refereed abstract, Northeast Aids Proceedings, pp. 28-32 (1979). 13) “The Industrial Marketing Implications of Organizational Hierarchy Within Purchasing Departments,” with R.E. Spekman, refereed, Proceedings of the American Marketing Association, pp. 178-181 (1981). 14) “Consumer Research Issues at the Federal Trade Commission,” with J. Calfee and T. Maronick, refereed, Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 19, pp. 263- 267 (1983). 15) “Consumer Psychology Research Needs at the Federal Trade Commission,” with J. Calfee, refereed, Proceedings of the Division of Consumer Psychology, American Psychological Association, pp. 118-122 (1984). 16) “Market , Information and Reduced Flammability Cigarettes,” with J. Calfee, Special Session, Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 14, pp. 274-278 (1987). 17) “An Empirical Test of the Search, Experience and Credence Attributes Framework,” with D.B. Smith and J. Swasy, special session, Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 15, pp. 239-243 (1988). 18) “Economics, Information and Consumer Behavior,” with J. Calfee, special session, Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 15, pp. 234-238 (1988). 19) “Cigarettes in the Popular Press, 1930-1960: Preliminary Research,” with D.J. Ringold and M. Rogers, special session, Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 17, pp. 467-473 (1990). 20) “Regulation of Advertising in the European Economic Community: An Overview,” special session, European Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 1, pp. 559-564 (1993). 21) “Consumer Search for Information in the Digital Age: an Empirical Study of Pre-Purchase Search for Automobiles” (with Lisa Klein) Advances in Consumer Research. (2001). Gary T. Ford Page 5

Articles in Books 1) “Problems in Education and Training in Marketing and Marketing Research in Information Science,” with P. Wasserman, Education and Training: Theory and Provision, Federation International De Documentation: The Hague, pp. 105-112 (1979) (a different version of the Journal of Library Administration article). 2) “Label Warnings in OTC Drug Advertising: Some Experimental Results,” with P.G. Kuehl, Current Issues and Research in Advertising, J.H. Leigh and C.R. Martin (eds.), Univ. of Press: Ann Arbor, pp. 115-130 (1979). 3) “Using Marketing Techniques to Increase Immunization Levels: A Field Experiment,” with R.E. Spekman, Exploring and Developing Government Marketing, S. Permut and M. Mokwa (eds.), New York, Praeger Press, pp. 304- 317 (1981). 4) “The FTC’s Product Defects Program and Consumer Perceptions of Product Quality,” with J. Calfee, Perceived Quality, J. Jacoby and J. Olson (eds.), Lexington, , Lexington Books, pp. 175-191 (1985). 5) “The Economics of Information: Research Issues,” with D.B. Smith and J.L. Swasy, Marketing and Advertising Regulation: The Federal Trade Commission in the 1990s, P. Murphy and W. Wilkie (eds.), pp. 300-312 (1990). Books Edited 1) Marketing and the Library, New York, Haworth Press (1984). 2) AMA Educators Proceedings, co-edited with R.L. Lusch, G.L. Frazier, R.D. Howell, C.A. Ingene, M. Reilly and R.W. Stampf, Chicago, American Marketing Association, 403 pages (1985). 3) AMA Educators Proceedings, co-edited with S.P. Douglas, M.R. Solomon, V. Mahajan, M.I. Alpert, W.M. Pride, G.L. Frazier, J.C. Anderson and P. Doyle, Chicago, American Marketing Association, 287 pages (1987). Research Reports 1) “A Study of Parks, Recreation and Open Space in Prince George’s and Montgomery Counties, Maryland,” with R.W. Janes and P.G. Kuehl, for Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission, 253 pages (1975). 2) “A Feasibility Study to Identify Methods to Increase the Levels of Immunization of Children Receiving Services from BCHS Funded Clinics,” with R.E. Spekman, prepared for Bureau of Community Health Services, D.H.E.W., 97 pages (1979). 3) “The Effects of Reduced Flammability Cigarettes on Smoker Behavior,” with J.P. Brown and J.E. Calfee, prepared for the National Bureau of Standards, 65 pages (October 1986). Gary T. Ford Page 6

4) “Final Report on Undercover Investigation of ATV Dealers,” prepared for Consumer Product Safety Commission, 53 pages (1989). 5) Preliminary Report “ABA Digital Evidence Project Survey on Electronic Discovery Trends and Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,” prepared for ABA Section of Science & Technology, 64 pages (2005). PRESENTATIONS “The Role of Dispute Mediation in Consumer Protection,” presented at Meetings of the Practicing Justice Institute, Marymount College, (1978). “The Use of Consumer Research in the Bureau of Economics, FTC,” presented at Association for Consumer Research Conference, San Francisco (1979). “The FTC’s 1983 Deception Policy Statement,” presented at Southern Marketing Association (November 1984). Proposed, organized and chaired special session on “FTC Policy Toward Deception,” at Association for Consumer Research Conference, Washington, D.C. (1984). As faculty member at AMA Doctoral Students Consortium at Notre Dame, presented “Economics of Information, Advertising and Public Policy (1986) (same session was repeated at 1987 Consortium at NYU). Proposed, organized and chaired special session on “Cigarettes and Regulation: Unintended Consequences?” at Association for Consumer Research Conference, Toronto (1986). “An Economics of Information Approach to the Regulation of Advertising,” with J. Calfee, Winter Educators Conference of the American Marketing Association (1988). “Signals in Advertising: Preliminary Results,” with D.B. Smith and J.L. Swasy, special session, Winter Educators Conference of the American Marketing Association (1991). “Content Analysis of Advertising for All-Terrain Vehicles, 1980-1987,” presented to the marketing faculty at INSEAD, Fontainebleu, France and to marketing faculty at Catholic University at Leuven (1992). “Can Consumers Interpret Nutrition Information in the Presence of a Health Claim? A Laboratory Investigation,” with M. Hastak, A. Mitra and D.J. Ringold, presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Consumer Research (1993). Gary T. Ford Page 7

“Interpretation of Health Claims and Nutrition Information by Disadvantaged Consumers,” with A. Mitra, M. Hastak and D.J. Ringold, presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Consumer Research (1994). “The Effects of Health Claims on Consumer Interpretation of FDA-mandated Nutrition Disclosures: a Mall Intercept Study,” with M. Hastak, A. Mitra and D.J. Ringold, presented at the Annual Marketing Association Public Policy Conference (1997). “Regulation of Advertising on the Internet,” with J. Calfee, presented at the Annual American Marketing Association Public Policy Conference (1997). “Consumer Search on the Internet,” with Lisa Klein, presented at the Annual American Marketing Association Public Policy Conference (1999). “Consumer Search on the Internet: Predictions from the Economics of Information,” with Lisa Klein, presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Consumer Research (1999). “Philosophy of Science and the Supreme Court: The Impact of the Daubert Decision on Survey Research Used in Litigation,” presented at Kenan-Flager School of Business, UNC at Chapel Hill (Fall 2002) and Marketing Faculty Consortium at Georgetown University (April 2003) “Philosophy of Science and the Supreme Court: The Impact of the Daubert Decision on Survey Research Used in Litigation,” presented at the Annual American Marketing Association Public Policy Conference (2003).

PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES/MEMBERSHIPS Manuscript reviewer for the American Marketing Association Educators’ Conferences, 1976-present; Southern Marketing Association Conferences, 1977- 1978; Journal of Marketing, 1979-1981, 1999-2001; Journal of Business Research, 1980; Association for Consumer Research Conferences, 1980, 1982, 1983, 1985- 1990, 1999-2000 and Journal of Consumer Research, 1987-1992, 1995, 1997-2001, Journal of Marketing Research, 1997-2000, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1999. Reviewer for AMA Dissertation Competition, 1983, 1987, 1995. Proposal reviewer for the National Science Foundation, the Ford Foundation and the Department of Energy. Discussant at AMA Consumerism Workshop, 1976; Southern Marketing Association Conference, 1977; American Marketing Association Educators’ Conference, 1978-1980; Association for Consumer Research Conference, 1978- Gary T. Ford Page 8

1980; AMA Professional Services Marketing Conference, 1981 and Public Policy Conference, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1997. Member of Program Committee, Association for Consumer Research meeting, 1980, 1984, 2000. Co-Chairman of AMA Doctoral Students Consortium, 1981. Faculty participant at AMA Doctoral Students Consortium, 1980, 1986 and 1987. Elected to Board of Directors, Association for Consumer Research, 1982-1985. Editorial Review Board, Journal of Marketing, 1982-1997. Editorial Review Board, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 1983-present. Special Editor, Marketing and Information Science Issue, Journal of Library Administration, 1983-1984. Public Policy Track Chairman, Educators’ Conference of the American Marketing Association, 1985, 1987, 2001. Book Review Editor Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 2001 to 2004. Appointed as representative from American Marketing Association to “Census Advisory Committee of Professional Associations” for 2010 United States Census.

GRANTS, CONTRACTS AND AWARDS RECEIVED Received competitively-bid contract from the Maryland National Park and Planning Commission for A Survey of Parks, Recreation and Open Space in Prince George’s and Montgomery Counties, Maryland, with R.W. Janes and P.G. Kuehl, $33,878 (Spring and Summer 1975). Received contract from National Institute of Health to develop curriculum for a two-day Cancer Communications Marketing Seminar, $8,000 (Summer 1978). Received contract for “A Feasibility Study to Identify Methods to Increase the Levels of Immunization of Children and Adolescents Receiving Services from BCHS Funded Clinics,” with Robert Spekman, from Bureau of Community Health Services, DHEW, $9,972 (Fall 1998). Received contract for “The Effects of Reduced Flammability Cigarettes on Smoker Behavior,” with John P. Brown, from Consumer Product Safety Commission and National Bureau of Standards, $19,925. Course Release, Senate Research Committee, American University (Spring 1987 and Spring 1988). Gary T. Ford Page 9

Summer Research Grants, Kogod College of Business Administration, American University (1986 and 1987). Received award for “The Effects of New Food Labels on Disadvantaged Consumers,” with M. Hastak, A. Mitra and D. Ringold, from Marketing Science Institute, $26,000 (1993) (proposal was one of six funded out of 45 entries in MSI “Using Research to Help Society Competition”). Listed as one of “The Best Researchers in Marketing,” Marketing Educator, p. 5 (Summer 1997). Received the “Kinnear Award” for the best article published in the Journal of Public Policy and Marketing between 2003 and 2005 (February 2007). Selected as “Outstanding Scholar,” Kogod School of Business, 2006.

CONSULTING WORK American Automobile Association Organization of American States Insituto De Investigaciones Electricas, Mexico Dames and Moore, Inc. System Bureau of Economics, Federal Trade Commission

EXPERT AND EXPERT WITNESS ASSIGNMENTS SINCE 2005

Polo Ralph Lauren v. United States Polo Association Paul Weiss (2005) Expert Report, Rebuttal Report, deposition, testimony Schick Manufacturing, Inc. v. The Gillette Company (P&G) Ropes & Gray (2005) Weil, Gotshal & Manges (2006) Expert Report, Rebuttal Report, deposition, testimony Omni Pacific, Inc. v. OmniBrands, Inc. DLA Piper (2005) Expert Report USA v. QVC, Inc. Baker & Hostetler (2005) Expert Report, deposition 9 Squared, Inc. v. Moviso, LLC and InfoSpace, Inc. Holland & Hart (2006) Expert Report, deposition Gary T. Ford Page 10

Medi-Flex, Inc. v. Nice-Pak Products, Inc and Professional Disposables, Inc. Lerner, David, Littenberg, Krumholz & Mentlik (2006) Declaration, deposition Align Techology, Inc. v. Orthoclear, Inc. and Orthoclear Holdings, Inc. Paul, Hastings, Janofsky and Walker LLP (2006) Expert report, deposition Shuttlesworth et al. v. Carleton Sheets and American Marketing Systems, Inc. Sachnoff & Weaver (2006) Expert Report American Century Proprietary Holdings, Inc. v. American Century Casualty Company and American Century Claims Service, Inc. Leydig, Voit and Mayer (2006) Expert Report, deposition Phar-Mor, Inc. v. McKesson Corporation t/d/b/a and McKesson Drug Company Shepard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton (2006) Expert Report, deposition Leggett & Platt, Incorporated and L&P Property Management Company v. Vutek, Inc. Howrey LLP (2006) Expert Report, deposition Bass Pro Trademarks, L.L.C. v. Sportsman’s Warehouse Husch & Eppenberger, L.L.C. (2006) Expert Report, deposition Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Haute Diggety Dog, LLC et al. Arent Fox, PLLC (2006) Expert Report Ohio Savings Bank d/b/a Amtrust Bank v. Amtrust Mortgage Corporation Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP (2007) Expert Report, deposition, testimony at Daubert hearing Ecce Panis, Inc. v. Maple Leaf Foods USA Inc. (2007) Lerner, David, Littenberg, Krumholz & Mentlik Declaration, testimony at evidentiary hearing Eric Bischoff v. Boar’s Head Provisions Co., Inc, et. al (2007) Weil, Gotshal & Manges Surrebuttal report, deposition Rexall Sundown Inc. v. Perrigo Company (2008) Kelley Drye Collier Shannon Expert report, deposition Pernod Ricard LLC v. Bacardi USA Inc. (2008) Kelley Drye Collier Shannon Rebuttal report, deposition The Evercare Company v. 3M Company Paul Weiss (2008) Rebuttal report, deposition Gary T. Ford Page 11

Lannett Company Inc. v. KV Pharmaceutical Company Kenyon & Kenyon (2008) Expert Report Quixtar, Inc. v. Signature Management Team, LLC d/b/a Team Brinks, Hofer, Gilson and Lione (2008) Expert report, deposition

THESIS COMMITTEES Chairman of dissertation committees for George Coan, Dennis Pitta, Debra Ringold and Darlene Smith. Member of dissertation committee for Bill Grazer, Michael McGinnis, Dennis McDonald, Frank Franzak, Ronald Hill and Dennis McDonnell. COMMITTEE SERVICE AT AMERICAN UNIVERSITY Kogod Rank and Tenure Committee (1987-1988, 1995-1998, 2004-2005) Faculty Senate Research Committee (1985-1989) Marketing Department Faculty Recruiting Committee (1985-2007) Ad hoc Research committee, KSB (1986-1989) Committee on Faculty Relations (1988-1989) Dean’s Executive Committee (1989-1994, 1999-2001, 2004, 2006-2007) Executive Committee of the AU Chairs (1993-1994) AU Presidential Search Committee (1993-1994) President’s Committee on Strategic Planning (1995-1997) AU Provost’s Committee on Academic Programs (1995-1997) Director of MBA Field Studies (1995-1997) Chair of Executive Education Committee (1998) Women’s Varsity Soccer Coach Search Committee (2000) Faculty Advisor Men’s Soccer (2002 to 2007) Associate Dean Search Committee, KSB, (2003)

UNDERGRADUATE COURSES TAUGHT “Principles of Marketing” “Marketing Research Methods” “Fundamentals of Marketing and Business for Communications” GRADUATE COURSES TAUGHT “Marketing Research Methods” “Doctoral Seminar in Marketing and Public Policy” “Research Methodology for Doctoral Students” “Consumer Behavior” “Marketing Management” January 1, 2009 DEBRA J. RINGOLD

2616 NW Lupine Place Corvallis, Oregon 97330-3537 541-752-1058 (phone) 541-752-1160 (fax)

PROFESSIONAL OBJECTIVE

To make a significant contribution to marketing thought and practice through teaching, research, and service

Primary Teaching Interests: marketing research, marketing and public policy, marketing management, marketing communications, strategic marketing for nonprofit organizations

Primary Research Interests: economics of information, regulation of commercial speech

Primary Service Interests: education, professional, and social service organizations

ACADEMIC BACKGROUND

Doctor of Philosophy: University of Maryland-College Park, 1986 Major Area: Marketing Minor Areas: Statistics, Applied Developmental Psychology (CAPS)

Dissertation: Consumer Response to Reductions in Freedom

Selected Coursework: Seminar in Consumer Behavior Seminar in Marketing and Public Policy Seminar in Industrial Marketing Seminar in Causal Modeling Multivariate Statistics I and II Advanced Regression Analysis Nonparametric Statistics Marketing Research Methods Business Research Methodology

Master of Business Administration: Southern Illinois University, l979 Major: Marketing Minor: Management

Bachelor of Arts: Texas Tech University, l977 Major: Zoology Minor: Chemistry

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

Academic Employment:

January 2008 to present Dean Atkinson Graduate School of Management Willamette University 900 State Street Salem, Oregon 97301

January 2007 to December 2007 Interim Dean Atkinson Graduate School of Management Willamette University 900 State Street Salem, Oregon 97301

August 2002 to May 2005 Associate Dean Atkinson Graduate School of Management Willamette University 900 State Street Salem, Oregon 97301

September 1997 to present Professor of Marketing Atkinson Graduate School of Management Willamette University 900 State Street Salem, Oregon 97301

September 1994 to August 1997 Associate Professor of Marketing Atkinson Graduate School of Management Willamette University 900 State Street Salem, Oregon 97301

April 1992 to August 1994 Associate Professor of Marketing Robert G. Merrick School of Business (RGMSB) University of Baltimore 1420 North Charles Street Baltimore, Maryland 21201

2

September l988 to March 1992 Assistant Professor of Marketing Robert G. Merrick School of Business University of Baltimore 1420 North Charles Street Baltimore, Maryland 21201

September l986 to August l988 Assistant Professor of Marketing Kogod College of Business Administration (KCBA) The American University Washington, D.C. 20016

September l985 to August l986 Instructor, Marketing Research Methods Instructor, Principles of Marketing Kogod College of Business Administration The American University Washington, D.C. 20016

August l983 to May l985 Instructor, Marketing Research Methods [Course Coordinator, Fall l984] College of Business and Management University of Maryland College Park, Maryland 20742

August l984 to January l985 Research Assistant to Samuel Kotz, Professor of Statistics College of Business and Management University of Maryland College Park, Maryland 20742

June l982 to May l983 Instructor, Marketing Principles and Organization University College University of Maryland College Park, Maryland 20742

August 1982 to May l983 Teaching Assistant, Marketing Principles and Organization College of Business and Management University of Maryland College Park, Maryland 20742

3

Public Sector Employment:

June l983 to January l984 Evaluation Research Assistant Office of Impact Evaluation Federal Trade Commission Washington, D.C. 20580

July l979 to August l982 Assistant to Director/Assistant Director The Maryland Student Union University of Maryland College Park, Maryland 20742

July l977 to June l979 Program Advisor The University Center Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, Illinois 62025

Recent Clients:

Consultant Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. One Busch Place St. Louis, Missouri 63118

Consultant Division of Market Studies Food and Drug Administration College Park, Maryland 20740

Consultant Canadian Broadcasting Corporation P.O. Box 8478 Ottawa, Ontario CANADA K1G 3J5

Consultant Hewlett-Packard Company 1070 NE Circle Boulevard Corvallis, Oregon 97330

Consultant State Farm Insurance Companies Pacific Northwest Region 1000 Wilmington Drive DuPont, Washington 98327

4

Consultant Bureau of Economics, Division of Consumer Protection Federal Trade Commission Sixth and Pennsylvania, NW Washington, D.C. 20580

RESEARCH

Peer Reviewed Publications:

Ringold, D.J. (2008), "Le Mieux Est L' ennemi Du Bien," Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 27 (2), 197-201.

Ringold, D.J. (2008) “Responsibility and Brand Advertising in the Alcohol Beverage Market: The Modeling of Normative Drinking Behavior,” Journal of Advertising, 37 (1), 127-141.

Ringold, D.J. and B. Weitz (2007), “The American Marketing Association Definition of Marketing: Moving from Lagging to Leading Indicator,” Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 26 (2), 251-260.

Ringold, D.J. (2006), “The Morality of Markets, Marketing, and the Corporate Purpose,” in Does Marketing Need Reform?, Jagdish N. Sheth and Rajendra S. Sisodia, eds., Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 64-68.

Ringold, D.J. (2005), “Vulnerability in the Marketplace: Concepts, Caveats, and Possible Solutions,” Journal of Macromarketing, 25 (2), 202-214.

Ringold, D.J. (2002), “Boomerang Effects In Response to Public Health Interventions: Some Unintended Consequences in the Alcoholic Beverage Market,” Journal of Consumer Policy, 25 (1), 27-63.

Pappalardo, J.K. and D.J. Ringold (2000), "Regulating Commercial Speech in a Dynamic Environment: Forty Years of Margarine and Oil Advertising Before the NLEA," Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 19 (1), 74-92.

Mitra, A., M. Hastak, G.T. Ford, and D.J. Ringold (1999), "Can the Educationally Disadvantaged Interpret the FDA-Mandated Nutrition Facts Panel in the Presence of an Implied Health Claim?" Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 18 (1), 106-117.

Ringold, D.J. (1998), "A Comment on the Pontifical Council for Social Communications' Ethics in Advertising," Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 17 (2), 332-335.

Ford, G.T., M. Hastak, A. Mitra, and D.J. Ringold (1996) "Can Consumers Interpret Nutrition Information in the Presence of a Health Claim? A Laboratory Investigation," Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 15 (1), 16-27.

5

Ringold, D.J. (1995), "Social Criticisms of Target Marketing: Process or Product?" American Behavioral , 38 (4), 578-592. Reprinted in Ronald Paul Hill, editor, Marketing and Consumer Behavior Research in the Public Interest, Thousand Oaks, : Sage Publications, Inc. (1996).

Calfee, J.E. and D.J. Ringold (1994), "The Seventy Percent Majority: Enduring Consumer Beliefs About Advertising," Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 13 (2), 228-238. Reprinted in Allison P. Zabriskie, editor, Advertising Law Anthology, 18 (1), Arlington, Virginia: International Library Law Book Publishers (1995).

Mazis, M.B., D.J. Ringold, E.S. Perry, and D.W. Denman (l992), "Perceived Age and Attractiveness of Models in Cigarette Advertising," Journal of Marketing, 56 (January), 22-37.

Calfee, J.E. and D.J. Ringold (1992), "The Cigarette Advertising Controversy: Assumptions About Consumers, Regulation, and Scientific Debate," Advances in Consumer Research, 19, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 557-562.

Ringold, D.J. (1991), "Consumer Response to Product Withdrawal: Psychological Reactance and Subsequent Product Choice," in Advances in Marketing and Public Policy, 2, Greenwich: JAI Press, Inc., 41-78.

King, K.W., L.N. Reid, Y.S. Moon, and D.J. Ringold (1991), "Changes in the Visual Imagery of Cigarette Ads, l954-1986," Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 10 (1), 63-80.

Ringold, D.J. and J.E. Calfee (l990), "What Can We Learn From the Informational Content of Cigarette Advertising? A Reply and Further Analysis", Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 9, 30-41.

Ford, G.T., D.J. Ringold, and M. Rogers (l990), "Tobacco in the Popular Press 1925-1960: Preliminary Research" in Advances in Consumer Research, 17, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 467-473.

Calfee, J.E. and D.J. Ringold (l990), "What Would Happen if Cigarette Advertising and Promotion Were Banned?" in Advances in Consumer Research, 17, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 474-479.

Ringold, D.J. and J.E. Calfee (l989), "The Informational Content of Cigarette Advertising: 1926- 1986," Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 8, 1-23.

Miller, R.D. and D.J. Ringold (l989), "The Economic Theory of Information and Public Policy: ReRegulation of the Air Transportation Market," in Proceedings l989 AMA Summer Educators' Conference, Chicago: American Marketing Association, 89-93.

Ringold, D.J. (l989), "Product Withdrawal and Psychological Reactance: A Laboratory Experiment," in Proceedings of the Division of Consumer Psychology, American Psychological Association, l988 Annual Convention, David W. Schumann, ed., Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, 102-107.

6

Ringold, D.J. (l988), "Consumer Response to Product Withdrawal: The Reformulation of Coca- Cola," Psychology and Marketing, 5 (3), 189-210. Reprinted in Ronald Jay Cohen, editor, 65 Exercises in Psychological Testing and Assessment, a companion to the textbook Psychological Testing and Assessment, Second Edition, New York: Mayfield Publishing (1992).

Calfee, J.E. and D.J. Ringold (l988), "Consumer Skepticism and Advertising Regulation: What Do the Polls Show?" in Advances in Consumer Research, 15, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 244-248.

Ringold, D.J. (l987), "A Selective History of Cigarette Advertising: Preliminary Perspectives," in American Council of Consumer Interests Annual Conference Proceedings, Vicki Hampton, ed., , Mo: ACCI, 20-27.

Ringold, D.J. (l987), "A Preliminary Investigation of the Information Content of Cigarette Advertising: A Longitudinal Analysis," in Advances in Consumer Research, 14, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 269-273.

Ringold, D.J. and P.N. Bloom (l985), "Adopter Incentives in Social Marketing: The Case of Recycling," in Services Marketing in a Changing Environment, T.M. Bloch, et al., eds., Chicago: American Marketing Association, 77-80.

Contract Research—Peer Reviewed and Published:

Ringold, D.J., J.P. Santell, and P.J. Schneider (2000), “ASHP National Survey of Pharmacy Practice in Acute Care Settings: Dispensing and Administration—1999,” American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, 57 (19), 1759-1775.

Ringold, D.J., J.P. Santell, P.J. Schneider, and S. Arenberg (1999),” ASHP National Survey of Pharmacy Practice in Acute Care Settings: Prescribing and Transcribing—1998,” American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, 56 (2), 142-157.

Contract Research—Published:

Ringold, D.J., T.M.P. Olson, and L. Leete (2003), “Managing Medicaid Take-Up, CHIP and Medicaid Outreach: Strategies, Efforts, and Evaluation,” Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government, Federalism Research Group.

Invited Publications:

Maltz, E.N., D.J. Ringold, and F. Thompson (2008), “Assessing Corporate Social Initiatives: A Tough-minded, But Sympathetic, Approach to Corporate Social Responsibility,” FSR forum, Corporate Social Responsibility, June, 20-25.

Ringold, D.J. (2006), “Three Current Best Sellers and One Really Good Book,” Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 25 (1), 127-130.

7

Work In Progress:

Maltz, Elliot N., Debra J. Ringold, and Fred Thompson (2007), “Maximizing Societal Return on Investment: An Efficiency View of Corporate Social Responsibility,” to be submitted to Journal of Consumer Policy, summer 2009.

Ringold, Debra J. (2008), “Enduring Consumer Beliefs about Advertising and the Press: Implications for Earning Media,” data collection complete, to be written and submitted to Journal of Advertising, summer 2009.

Ringold, Debra J., Alan S. Levy, John Kozup, Brenda Derby, and Janis K. Pappalardo (2008), “The Impact of FDA vs. FTC Regulations on Consumer Beliefs, Skepticism, and Judgments about Food,” data collection completed January 2008, to be submitted to American Journal of Public Health, fall 2009.

Selected Presentations:

Marketing and Public Policy Conference, “Corporate Societal Marketing: A Different View,” Summer 2004 (peer reviewed), published abstract.

AMA Summer Educators Conference, “JPPM and the Reemergence of Public Policy: Substantive and Publication Insights From the Editor and Award Winning Authors,” Summer 2003 (invited).

Marketing and Public Policy Conference, “Political and Civic Participation: Hypotheses Developed During a Campaign for the State Legislature,” Summer 2001 (invited).

Marketing and Public Policy Conference, “Campaign Finance Reform: Views of a Participant Observer,” Summer 2000 (invited).

Marketing and Public Policy Conference, “Exploring the Effects of Political Action and the Desire to Reform Campaign Finance,” Summer 1999 (invited), published abstract.

Marketing and Public Policy Conference, “The Effects of Health Claims on Consumer Interpretation of FDA-Mandated Nutrition Disclosures: A Mall-Intercept Study,” Spring 1997 (peer reviewed).

Marketing and Public Policy Conference, "Examining Alternative Explanations for Health Claim Changes Associated with Regulation: The Consumer Interest Hypothesis," Spring 1996 (peer reviewed).

American Marketing Association Marketing and Society Mini-Conference, "Can the Educationally Disadvantaged Interpret Nutrition Information in the Presence of a Health Claim?" Fall 1995 (invited).

Marketing and Public Policy Conference, "...The Search for Objective, Intersubjectively Verifiable Knowledge...,” Spring 1995 (peer reviewed).

8

Association for Consumer Research Conference, "Can Educationally Disadvantaged Consumers Interpret Nutrition Information in the Presence of a Health Claim? Preliminary Results," Fall 1994 (peer reviewed).

Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Economics, "The Effects of Health Claims on Consumer Judgements About the Healthfulness of Food: A Laboratory Experiment," Summer 1993 (invited).

Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Economics, "Enduring Consumer Beliefs About, and Responses to Advertising," Summer l992 (invited).

Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Economics, "The Information Content of Margarine and Oil Advertising: 1950-l989," Summer l992 (invited).

The Federal Trade Commission, "Perceived Age and Attractiveness of Models in Cigarette Advertising," Spring 1991 (invited).

SELECTED HONORS

Faculty Mentor, Marketing and Society Doctoral Consortium, Villanova University, 2008

JELD-WEN Professor of Free Enterprise, May 2008 to present

Administrator of the Year, Willamette University, 2005

Thomas C. Kinnear/Journal of Public Policy and Marketing Award for the article (with Janis K. Pappalardo) "Regulating Commercial Speech in a Dynamic Environment: Forty Years of Margarine and Oil Advertising Before the NLEA." The article was chosen by a vote of the members of the Editorial Board for its significant contribution to the discipline, 2004

Faculty Mentor, Marketing and Society Doctoral Consortium, University of Utah, 2004

Corvallis Area Chamber of Commerce, Volunteer of the Year Award, 2002

United Methodist Award for Exemplary Teaching and Community Service, Willamette University, 2002

Kenneth H. Cooley Memorial Award for Outstanding Volunteer Service and Dedicated Community Leadership, United Way of Benton County, 2002

Faculty Mentor, Marketing and Society Doctoral Consortium, Federal Trade Commission, 2000

Resident Faculty, Marketing and Society Doctoral Consortium, Notre Dame University, 1999

Jerry E. Hudson Distinguished Teaching Award, Willamette University, 1997

Session Chair and Presenter, 1995 Doctoral Symposium on Marketing and Public Policy, Georgia State University

9

Finalist, Thomas C. Kinnear/Journal of Public Policy and Marketing Award for the article (with John E. Calfee) "The Informational Content of Cigarette Advertising: 1926-1986." The article was chosen by a vote of the members of the Editorial Board for its significant contribution to the discipline, 1993

Dean James Chair for Distinguished Teaching, Robert G. Merrick School of Business, University of Baltimore, 1991

Finalist, Dean James Chair for Distinguished Teaching, Merrick School of Business, University of Baltimore, l990, 1992-93

Black and Decker Research Award Nominee, Robert G. Merrick School of Business, University of Baltimore, l990-93

Fellow, Center for Marketing Policy Research, The American University, Washington, D.C. 1988 to present

Kogod College of Business Administration Nominee for University Teaching Award, The American University, l987

Nash Outstanding Doctoral Student Award, College of Business and Management, University of Maryland, l985

American Marketing Association Doctoral Consortium Fellow, College of Business and Management, University of Maryland, l984

"Top Teachers" Award, College of Business and Management, University of Maryland, l983, l984

Beta Gamma Sigma; Alpha Kappa Psi (Faculty)

Mortar Board

SELECTED UNIVERSITY SERVICE

Chair, AGSM Personnel Committee, 2006

Willamette University Institutional Review Board, 1994-99

AGSM Dean’s Search Committee Member, 1998

Chair, AGSM Curriculum Committee, 1997-98

AGSM Faculty Representative to the Board of Trustees 1995-97

Willamette University Board of Trustees Academic Affairs Committee, 1994-95

Advisor, AGSM chapter of the American Marketing Association, 1994-2004

10

Chair, RGMSB Promotion and Tenure Committee, 1993-94

Member, RGMSB Promotion and Tenure Committee, 1992-93

Chair, RGMSB Teaching Committee, 1991-92

University of Baltimore Academic Policy Committee, 1990-92

Chair, RGMSB Master of Business Administration Committee, 1990-91

Advisor, RGMSB chapter of the American Marketing Association, 1988-94

Advisor, KCBA chapter of the American Marketing Association, 1985-87

SELECTED COMMUNITY SERVICE

U.S. Census Advisory Committee, 2007-10

Board of Directors, United Way of Benton County, 2000-06; Board Chair, 2005-06

Board of Directors, OSU Federal Credit Union, Corvallis, Oregon, 2001-05

Board of Trustees, Linn-Benton Community College Foundation, 2001-04

Board of Directors, Corvallis Caring Place Nonprofit Assisted Living Facility, Corvallis, Oregon, 1999-2002

Board of Directors, Family Building Blocks Relief Nursery, Salem, Oregon, 1997-2000

Site Council Representative, Wilson Elementary School, Corvallis, Oregon, 1997-99

President, Parent Teacher Association, Wilson Elementary School, Corvallis, Oregon, 1996-97, 1998-99

Budget Committee, Corvallis School District 509J Board of Directors, Corvallis, Oregon, 1995- 2001

Member, Board of Directors, The Aidan Montessori School, Washington, D.C., l989-90, 1992-93

President, Board of Directors, The Aidan Montessori School, Washington, D.C., l990-91

SELECTED PROFESSIONAL SERVICE

Board of Directors, American Marketing Association, 2000-03, 2004-08; Finance Committee of the Board, 2002-08, Secretary-Treasurer, 2004-05, Chair-elect 2005-06, Chairperson of the Board, 2006-07

11

Board of Trustees, American Marketing Association Foundation, 2003-06

Vice President of Teaching and Information Dissemination of the American Marketing Association Academic Council, Elect 1997-98, Served 1998-99

Chair, Board of Directors, Marketing and Society Special Interest Group, American Marketing Association, 1996-97

Member, Board of Directors, Marketing and Society Special Interest Group, American Marketing Association, 1994-2000

Associate Editor, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 2006-09

Editorial Board Member, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 1991 to present

Editorial Board Member, Journal of Advertising, 1997-2004

Ad Hoc Reviewer, Journal of Marketing, Psychology and Marketing, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Journal of Consumer Policy, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 1991 to present

Track Chair, AMA Summer Educators Conference, 1999, 2004 Co-Chair/Chair, AMA Marketing and Society Special Interest Group Mini-Conferences, 1995, 1997, 1998

Program Committee and Reviewer, Marketing and Public Policy Conferences, 1991-93, 1995- 2002, 2004-08

Chair, Marketing and Public Policy Conference, Guest Editor, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 1994

Reviewer/Discussant/Session Chair: Academy of Marketing Science Conferences, American Marketing Association Services Marketing Conferences, American Marketing Association Summer Educators' Conferences, American Marketing Association Winter Educators' Conferences, Association of Consumer Research Conferences, and American Psychological Association Conferences, 1986 to present

Local Arrangements Chair, American Psychological Association, Division 23, National Conference, Washington, D.C., 1986

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS

American Academy of Advertising

American Marketing Association

Association for Consumer Research

12

Screening Survey to Verify Decision Makers and Signal Carriage

2004 Version Screening Survey to Verify Decision Makers and Signal Carriage

Approved 09/10/04

"Hello, I am (interviewer name) calling from Westat, a research firm located in Rockville, Maryland.

1. "Is this______(name of cable system)?"

Yes 1 No [Call information for correct number.] 2

______[Record area code and number.]

2. "Could you tell me the name and title of the person in your company who is responsible for deciding which television stations your cable system offers?"

First person named:

Name:______Title:______

"May we reach him/her at this same number?"

Yes 1 No ["May I have the number where he/she can be reached?"] 2

______[Record area code and number.]

3. "Is there anyone else responsible for deciding which television stations are carried by your cable system?"

Second person named:

Name:______Title:______

"May we reach him/her at this same number?"

Yes 1 No ["May I have the number where he/she can be reached?"] 2

______[Record area code and number.]

4. "Your cable system carries a number of distant television stations, i.e., broadcast stations that do not originate in your local television market. Who in your organization has a list of the call letters of the distant television stations your cable system carries?"

Name:______Title:______

"May we reach him/her at this same number?"

Yes ["Will you please transfer me?"] 1 No ["May I have the number where he/she can be reached?"] 2

______[Record area code and number.]

[Transfer or redial the person named in Q4.]

"Hello, Mr./Ms.______, I am [interviewer name] calling from Westat, a research firm located in Rockville, Maryland. We are conducting telephone interviews to determine which distant television stations are carried by different cable systems. Our questions will take only a few minutes.

Refusal ["Is there someone else in your organization who can 1 give us a list of the call letters of the distant television stations carried by your cable system?" Record below.]

"First, let me check some background information."

5. "Are you familiar with, or can you consult a list of, the call letters (i.e., call signs) of the distant television stations carried by your cable system?" By distant I mean broadcast stations that do not originate in your local television market.

Yes 1 (Q7)

No ["Who in your organization has a list of the call letters 2 of the distant television stations your cable system carries?"]

Name:______Title:______

"May we reach him/her at this same number?"

Yes ["Will you please transfer me?"] 1 No ["May I have the number where he/she can be reached?"] 2

______[Record area code and number.]

[Transfer or redial the person named in Q5.]

"Hello, Mr./Ms.______, I am [interviewer name] calling from Westat, a research firm located in Rockville, Maryland. We are conducting telephone interviews to determine which distant television stations are carried by different cable systems. Our questions will take only a few minutes.

Refusal ["Is there someone else in your organization who can 1 give us a list of the call letters of the distant television stations your cable system carries?" Record below.]

"First, let me check some background information."

6. "Are you familiar with, or can you consult a list of, the call letters (i.e., call signs) of the distant television stations carried by your cable system?" By distant I mean broadcast stations that do not originate in your local television market.

Yes 1 (Q7) No ["Who in your organization has a list of the call letters 2 of the distant television stations carried by your cable system?"]

Name:______Title:______

"May we reach him/her at this same number?"

Yes ["Will you please transfer me?"] 1 No ["May I have the number where he/she can be reached?"] 2

______[Record area code and number.]

[Transfer or redial the person named in Q6 and repeat above inquiry until someone familiar with the call letters of the distant signals carried by the cable system has been located.]

7. "As I understand it you are the [job title] at your cable system. [If necessary, revise title previously noted above.]

8. "How many years have you been with this cable system?" ______

9. "How many years have you worked in the cable industry?" ______

10. "So that we do not miss any information during our interview, would you please consult a list of the call letters of the distant television stations carried by your cable system?"

Yes 1 No, has them memorized 2

11. "According to public records, your cable system carries a number of distant television stations, i.e., broadcast stations that do not originate in your local television market. As I name each distant television station, could you tell me whether your cable system currently carries it?" [Distant signals to be reviewed are those found in columns “A,” “B,” and “C” for each system in the population list provided.]

a. ______Yes 1 ______No 2 mm/yy dropped

b. ______Yes 1 ______No 2 mm/yy dropped

c. ______Yes 1 ______No 2 mm/yy dropped

d. ______Yes 1 ______No 2 mm/yy dropped

e. ______Yes 1 ______No 2 mm/yy dropped

f. ______Yes 1 ______No 2 mm/yy dropped

g. ______Yes 1 ______No 2 mm/yy dropped

12. “Does your cable system currently offer WTBS?” No 1 Yes 2

13. "Does your cable system carry any distant television stations that I have not mentioned?" No 1 (Q14) Yes ["What are they?"] 2

______mm/yy added

______mm/yy added

______mm/yy added

______mm/yy added

14. Finally, please let me verify the fax number and address of your cable company?

Name:______

Fax:______

Street:______

City:______

State:______Zip:______

Screening Survey to Verify Decision Makers and Signal Carriage

2005 Version Screening Survey to Verify Decision Makers and Signal Carriage

Approved 08/23/05

"Hello, I am (interviewer name) calling from Westat, a research firm located in Rockville, Maryland.

1. "Is this______(name of cable system)?"

Yes 1 No [Call information for correct number.] 2

______[Record area code and number.]

2. "Could you tell me the name and title of the person in your company who is responsible for deciding which television stations your cable system offers?"

First person named:

Name:______Title:______

"May we reach him/her at this same number?"

Yes 1 No ["May I have the number where he/she can be reached?"] 2

______[Record area code and number.]

3. "Is there anyone else responsible for deciding which television stations are carried by your cable system?"

Second person named:

Name:______Title:______

"May we reach him/her at this same number?"

Yes 1 No ["May I have the number where he/she can be reached?"] 2

______[Record area code and number.]

4. "Your cable system carries a number of distant television stations, i.e., broadcast stations that do not originate in your local television market. Who in your organization has a list of the call letters of the distant television stations your cable system carries?"

Name:______Title:______

"May we reach him/her at this same number?"

Yes ["Will you please transfer me?"] 1 No ["May I have the number where he/she can be reached?"] 2

______[Record area code and number.]

[Transfer or redial the person named in Q4.]

"Hello, Mr./Ms.______, I am [interviewer name] calling from Westat, a research firm located in Rockville, Maryland. We are conducting telephone interviews to determine which distant television stations are carried by different cable systems. Our questions will take only a few minutes.

Refusal ["Is there someone else in your organization who can 1 give us a list of the call letters of the distant television stations carried by your cable system?" Record below.]

"First, let me check some background information."

5. "Are you familiar with, or can you consult a list of, the call letters (i.e., call signs) of the distant television stations carried by your cable system?" By distant I mean broadcast stations that do not originate in your local television market.

Yes 1 (Q7)

No ["Who in your organization has a list of the call letters 2 of the distant television stations your cable system carries?"]

Name:______Title:______

"May we reach him/her at this same number?"

Yes ["Will you please transfer me?"] 1 No ["May I have the number where he/she can be reached?"] 2

______[Record area code and number.]

[Transfer or redial the person named in Q5.]

"Hello, Mr./Ms.______, I am [interviewer name] calling from Westat, a research firm located in Rockville, Maryland. We are conducting telephone interviews to determine which distant television stations are carried by different cable systems. Our questions will take only a few minutes.

Refusal ["Is there someone else in your organization who can 1 give us a list of the call letters of the distant television stations your cable system carries?" Record below.]

"First, let me check some background information."

6. "Are you familiar with, or can you consult a list of, the call letters (i.e., call signs) of the distant television stations carried by your cable system?" By distant I mean broadcast stations that do not originate in your local television market.

Yes 1 (Q7) No ["Who in your organization has a list of the call letters 2 of the distant television stations carried by your cable system?"]

Name:______Title:______

"May we reach him/her at this same number?"

Yes ["Will you please transfer me?"] 1 No ["May I have the number where he/she can be reached?"] 2

______[Record area code and number.]

[Transfer or redial the person named in Q6 and repeat above inquiry until someone familiar with the call letters of the distant signals carried by the cable system has been located.]

7. "As I understand it you are the [job title] at your cable system. [If necessary, revise title previously noted above.]

8. "How many years have you been with this cable system?" ______

9. "How many years have you worked in the cable industry?" ______

10. "So that we do not miss any information during our interview, would you please consult a list of the call letters of the distant television stations carried by your cable system?"

Yes 1 No, has them memorized 2

11. "According to public records, your cable system carries a number of distant television stations, i.e., broadcast stations that do not originate in your local television market. As I name each distant television station, could you tell me whether your cable system currently carries it?" [Distant signals to be reviewed are those found in columns “A,” “B,” and “C” for each system in the population list provided.]

a. ______Yes 1 ______No 2 mm/yy dropped

b. ______Yes 1 ______No 2 mm/yy dropped

c. ______Yes 1 ______No 2 mm/yy dropped

d. ______Yes 1 ______No 2 mm/yy dropped

e. ______Yes 1 ______No 2 mm/yy dropped

f. ______Yes 1 ______No 2 mm/yy dropped

g. ______Yes 1 ______No 2 mm/yy dropped

12. “Does your cable system currently offer WTBS?” No 1 Yes 2

13. "Does your cable system carry any distant television stations that I have not mentioned?" No 1 (Q14) Yes ["What are they?"] 2

______mm/yy added

______mm/yy added

______mm/yy added

______mm/yy added

14. Finally, please let me verify the fax number and address of your cable company?

Name:______

Fax:______

Street:______

City:______

State:______Zip:______

Date

Mr./Ms. ______Cable System Manager Cablevision Services, Inc. 121 Mill Street Anywhere, Maine 04210

Dear Mr./Ms. ______:

Westat, a research firm located in Rockville, Maryland is conducting a telephone interview study of the factors important to cable systems in their decisions to carry television signals. This letter is to alert you that your cable system has been selected for inclusion in our study.

We realize that your time is valuable and that you are probably called frequently to participate in surveys. Because of this, we have designed a short survey, (it takes less than ten minutes), and we are offering each study respondent a $75.00 honorarium.

One of our researchers will be calling in the next few days. At that time, you will be asked if it is convenient to conduct the interview or whether we should call back at another time. We will be happy to conduct the interview at your , day or night.

Since we have selected a small sample, each response is important to the success of our study. We look forward to speaking with you about this important project.

Cordially,

Appendix 4

Disposition of Cable Systems Carrying Canadian Programming

2004 2005

Form 3 Systems with one or more Canadian 64 52 distant signals Systems ineligible due to multiple respondents 5 0 Population of eligible cable system 59 52 respondents, (ECSR)

Completed interviews, (CI) 32 32

Survey response rate, (CI/ECSR) 54% 62%

Questionnaire 2004 A Form A Distant Signal Questionnaire Approved 09/10/04

"Hello, I am (interviewer name) calling from Westat, a research firm located in Rockville, Maryland. I would like to speak to ______; s/he is expecting my call."

[If respondent not available, set up appointment to callback, record on call record form.]

When respondent comes on, say:

"Hello Mr./Ms. ______, I am (interviewer name) calling from Westat, a research firm located in Rockville, Maryland. We recently "faxed" you a letter saying that we would be calling about a survey on cable television channel decisions. We said in the letter, that the interview will take less than ten minutes and we will pay you $75.00 for your time. The results will be combined for statistical purposes, but your individual responses will remain anonymous."

"May we proceed with the interview?"

Yes No --> "When is a convenient time to call back?" (Record date and time for callback on call record form.) No, refusal--> "Could you please tell me why you have decided not to participate?" (Record verbatim.)

______"Any other reason?" (Record verbatim.)

"First, let me go over some background information."

1a. "As I understand it you are the person primarily responsible for deciding which television stations your cable system carries. Is that correct?"

Yes 1 (1b) No --> "Could you tell me the name and title of the person at your cable system 2 who is responsible for deciding which television stations the system offers?"

[Record name:______title:______]

"May we reach him/her at this same number?"

Yes 1 No--> "May I have the number where he/she can be reached?" 2 ______[Record area code and number.] (Thank respondent and terminate interview.)

1 1b. "Were you responsible for deciding which television stations this cable system carried during 2004?" Yes 1 (1c) No--> Ask: 2

"Is the person who was responsible for deciding which television stations to carry in 2004 still working at this cable system?" No (Thank respondent and terminate interview.) 2 Yes 1

[Record name:______title:______]

"May we reach him/her at this same number?"

Yes 1 No--> "May I have the number where he/she can be reached?" 2 ______[Record area code and number.] (Thank respondent and terminate interview.)

1c. "In addition to selecting television stations, are you, or someone you supervise, responsible for making the budget decisions or recommendations associated with station carriage?"

Yes 1 No--> "How are these budget decisions made?" (Record verbatim.) 2

______

______

2a. "According to public records, your cable system currently carries a number of distant television stations and/or cable networks.” [If asked, “Distant television stations are broadcast stations that do not originate in your local television market."]

For the Signal A List:

[Determine if each distant Signal A was carried in 2004.] Y N D/K "During 2004, has ______been carried by your cable system?" 1 2 3 "During 2004, has ______been carried by your cable system?" 1 2 3 "During 2004, has ______been carried by your cable system?" 1 2 3

[Record at Q2b the first Signal A carried during 2004 and go to Signal B List. If no Signal A has been carried during 2004, ask "Any distant superstation carried in 2004?" Yes ______(RECORD AT Q2b.) 1 No --> (DO NOT ASK ABOUT SIGNAL A ON REST OF SURVEY.) 2

2

Then for the Signal B List:

[Determine if each distant Signal B was carried during 2004.]

Y N D/K "During 2004, has ______been carried by your cable system?" 1 2 3 "During 2004, has ______been carried by your cable system?" 1 2 3 "During 2004, has ______been carried by your cable system?" 1 2 3

[Record at Q2b the first Signal B carried during 2004 and go to Signal C List. If no Signal B has been carried during 2004, ask "Any distant Canadian station carried in 2004?" Yes ______(RECORD AT Q2b.) 1 No --> (DO NOT ASK ABOUT SIGNAL B ON REST OF SURVEY.) 2

Then for the Signal C list:

[Determine if each distant Signal C was carried during 2004.]

Y N D/K "During 2004, has ______been carried by your cable system?" 1 2 3 "During 2004, has ______been carried by your cable system?" 1 2 3 "During 2004, has ______been carried by your cable system?" 1 2 3

[Record at Q2b the first Signal C carried during 2004 and continue. If no Signal C has been carried during 2004, ask "Any distant independent station carried in 2004?" Yes ______(RECORD AT Q2b.) 1 No --> (DO NOT ASK ABOUT SIGNAL C ON REST OF SURVEY.) 2

2b. "Okay, from what you have said your system has carried the following distant television stations during 2004."

Call letters: Yes No

SIGNAL A: ______1 2

SIGNAL B: ______1 2

SIGNAL C: ______1 2

(THANK RESPONDENT AND TERMINATE INTERVIEW IF NO SIGNAL B RECORDED AT Q2B.)

3

"The purpose of the next question is to get your perception of the relative value of the programming available on [SIGNAL A] ______."

3. "Assume the total value of all the programming now carried on [SIGNAL A] ______equals 100 percent. First, I' ll read a list of seven different program categories. I' ll give you a chance to think about each one and jot them down if you wish. Then, I will read the list again and get your estimates of each category' s value.

The sum must total to 100 percent. This means that if you felt that the seven programming categories were of equal value, you would assign each a little under 15 percentage points."

(Read program types in order starting with the "checked" programming type. Read "Other" last.)

"What percentage, if any, of the total value of programming carried on [A] ______would you say is accounted for by the . . ." (Start with "checked" program type.)

"And what percentage, if any, of the total value of programming carried on [A] ______would you say is accounted for by the . . ." (Read next program type.)

GO THROUGH REST OF LIST THIS WAY.

Start Point: Type of programming: Percentage:

( ) Live professional and college team sports shown on (SIG. A). __ __

( ) Station produced programs shown exclusively on (SIG. A). This includes local news, public affairs, children' s programs and talk shows hosted by the station' s own personalities. __ __

( ) Syndicated shows, series, and specials other than children' s or religious programs shown on (SIG. A). __ __

( ) Movies shown on (SIG. A). __ __

( ) Syndicated children' s programming shown on (SIG. A). __ __

( ) Devotional and religious programming shown on (SIG. A). __ __

Other Programming shown on (SIG. A). (Ask respondent to specify type of programming. Probe with "anything else?") __ __

______

______.

(THIS MUST TOTAL TO 100%!) TOTAL 100%

4

"The next question asks similar information for the programming available on [SIGNAL B] ______."

4. "Again, assume the total value of all the programming now carried on [SIGNAL B]______equals 100 percent. I' ll read a list of seven different program categories. I' ll give you a chance to think about each one and jot them down if you wish. Then, I will read the list again and get your estimates of each category' s value. The sum must total to 100 percent.

(Read program types in order starting with the "checked" programming type. Read "Other" last.)

"What percentage, if any, of the total value of programming carried on [B] ______would you say is accounted for by the . . ." (Start with "checked" program type.)

"And what percentage, if any, of the total value of programming carried on [B] ______would you say is accounted for by the . . ." (Read next program type.)

GO THROUGH REST OF LIST THIS WAY.

Start Point: Type of programming: Percentage:

( ) Live professional and college team sports, excluding Canadian Football League games, shown on (SIG. B). __ __

( ) Canadian produced news, public affairs, religious, and documentary programs shown on (SIG. B). This includes both Canadian network and station produced programs. __ __

( ) U.S. syndicated series, movies, and specials shown on (SIG. B). __ __

( ) Sports programming such as the Olympics, Canadian Football League games, skating, skiing, tennis, and auto racing shown on (SIG. B). __ __

( ) Canadian produced series, movies, arts and variety shows, and specials shown on (SIG. B). This does not include children' s programming. __ __

( ) Canadian produced children' s programming shown on (SIG. B). __ __

Other Programming shown on (SIG. B). (Ask respondent to specify type of programming. Probe with "anything else?") __ __

______

______.

(THIS MUST TOTAL TO 100%!) TOTAL 100%

5

"The next question asks similar information for the programming available on [SIGNAL C] ______."

5. "Once again, assume the total value of all the programming now carried on [SIGNAL C] ______equals 100 percent. I' ll read a list of seven different program categories. I' ll give you a chance to think about each one and jot them down if you wish. Then, I will read the list again and get your estimates of each category' s value. The sum must total to 100 percent.

(Read program types in order starting with the "checked" programming type. Read "other" last.)

"What percentage, if any, of the total value of programming carried on [C] ______would you say is accounted for by the . . ." (Start with "checked" program type.)

"And what percentage, if any, of the total value of programming carried on [C] ______would you say is accounted for by the . . ." (Read next program type.)

GO THROUGH REST OF LIST THIS WAY.

Start Point: Type of programming: Percentage:

( ) Live professional and college team sports shown on (SIG. C). __ __

( ) Station produced programs shown exclusively on (SIG. C). This includes local news, public affairs, children' s programs and talk shows hosted by the station' s own personalities. __ __

( ) Syndicated shows, series, and specials other than children' s or religious programs shown on (SIG. C). __ __

( ) Movies shown on (SIG. C). __ __

( ) Syndicated children' s programming shown on (SIG. C). __ __

( ) Devotional and religious programming shown on (SIG. C). __ __

Other Programming shown on (SIG. C). (Ask respondent to specify type of programming. Probe with "anything else?") __ __

______

______.

(THIS MUST TOTAL TO 100%!) TOTAL 100%

6

6. "My final questions are for demographic purposes only. (In whole years.) Please tell me..." a. "How many years have you been in your present job?" ___ b. "How many years have you worked for this cable system?" ___ c. "For how many years have you been responsible for deciding which distant television stations this system carries? ___ d. "How many years have you worked in the cable television industry?" ___ e. "How old are you?" ___ f. Gender of respondent. (OBSERVATION ONLY.) Male 1 Female 2

7. "Finally, let me verify that the name and address we have for you is correct, so that we can send you your honorarium." (Check this with the information on the first page of the call record sheet.)

"Thank you for your help with our survey."

7

Questionnaire 2004 C Form C Distant Signal Questionnaire Approved 09/10/04

"Hello, I am (interviewer name) calling from Westat, a research firm located in Rockville, Maryland. I would like to speak to ______; s/he is expecting my call."

[If respondent not available, set up appointment to callback, record on call record form.]

When respondent comes on, say:

"Hello Mr./Ms. ______, I am (interviewer name) calling from Westat, a research firm located in Rockville, Maryland. We recently "faxed" you a letter saying that we would be calling about a survey on cable television channel decisions. We said in the letter, that the interview will take less than ten minutes and we will pay you $75.00 for your time. The results will be combined for statistical purposes, but your individual responses will remain anonymous."

"May we proceed with the interview?"

Yes No --> "When is a convenient time to call back?" (Record date and time for callback on call record form.) No, refusal--> "Could you please tell me why you have decided not to participate?" (Record verbatim.)

______"Any other reason?" (Record verbatim.)

"First, let me go over some background information."

1a. "As I understand it you are the person primarily responsible for deciding which television stations your cable system carries. Is that correct?"

Yes 1 (1b) No --> "Could you tell me the name and title of the person at your cable system 2 who is responsible for deciding which television stations the system offers?"

[Record name:______title:______]

"May we reach him/her at this same number?"

Yes 1 No--> "May I have the number where he/she can be reached?" 2 ______[Record area code and number.] (Thank respondent and terminate interview.)

1 1b. "Were you responsible for deciding which television stations this cable system carried during 2004?" Yes 1 (1c) No--> Ask: 2

"Is the person who was responsible for deciding which television stations to carry in 2004 still working at this cable system?" No (Thank respondent and terminate interview.) 2 Yes 1

[Record name:______title:______]

"May we reach him/her at this same number?"

Yes 1 No--> "May I have the number where he/she can be reached?" 2 ______[Record area code and number.] (Thank respondent and terminate interview.)

1c. "In addition to selecting television stations, are you, or someone you supervise, responsible for making the budget decisions or recommendations associated with station carriage?"

Yes 1 No--> "How are these budget decisions made?" (Record verbatim.) 2

______

______

2a. "According to public records, your cable system currently carries a number of distant television stations and/or cable networks.” [If asked, “Distant television stations are broadcast stations that do not originate in your local television market."]

For the Signal A List:

[Determine if each distant Signal A was carried in 2004.] Y N D/K "During 2004, has ______been carried by your cable system?" 1 2 3 "During 2004, has ______been carried by your cable system?" 1 2 3 "During 2004, has ______been carried by your cable system?" 1 2 3

[Record at Q2b the first Signal A carried during 2004 and go to Signal B List. If no Signal A has been carried during 2004, ask "Any distant superstation carried in 2004?" Yes ______(RECORD AT Q2b.) 1 No --> (DO NOT ASK ABOUT SIGNAL A ON REST OF SURVEY.) 2

2 Then for the Signal B List:

[Determine if each distant Signal B was carried during 2004.]

Y N D/K "During 2004, has ______been carried by your cable system?" 1 2 3 "During 2004, has ______been carried by your cable system?" 1 2 3 "During 2004, has ______been carried by your cable system?" 1 2 3

[Record at Q2b the first Signal B carried during 2004 and go to Signal C List. If no Signal B has been carried during 2004, ask "Any distant station carried in 2004?" Yes ______(RECORD AT Q2b.) 1 No --> (DO NOT ASK ABOUT SIGNAL B ON REST OF SURVEY.) 2

Then for the Signal C list:

[Determine if each distant Signal C was carried during 2004.]

Y N D/K "During 2004, has ______been carried by your cable system?" 1 2 3 "During 2004, has ______been carried by your cable system?" 1 2 3 "During 2004, has ______been carried by your cable system?" 1 2 3

[Record at Q2b the first Signal C carried during 2004 and continue. If no Signal C has been carried during 2004, ask "Any distant independent station carried in 2004?" Yes ______(RECORD AT Q2b.) 1 No --> (DO NOT ASK ABOUT SIGNAL C ON REST OF SURVEY.) 2

2b. "Okay, from what you have said your system has carried the following distant television stations during 2004."

Call letters: Yes No

SIGNAL A: ______1 2

SIGNAL B: ______1 2

SIGNAL C: ______1 2

(THANK RESPONDENT AND TERMINATE INTERVIEW IF NO SIGNAL B RECORDED AT Q2B.)

3

"The purpose of the next question is to get your perception of the relative value of the programming available on [SIGNAL A] ______."

3. "Assume the total value of all the programming now carried on [SIGNAL A] ______equals 100 percent. First, I' ll read a list of seven different program categories. I' ll give you a chance to think about each one and jot them down if you wish. Then, I will read the list again and get your estimates of each category' s value.

The sum must total to 100 percent. This means that if you felt that the seven programming categories were of equal value, you would assign each a little under 15 percentage points."

(Read program types in order starting with the "checked" programming type. Read "Other" last.)

"What percentage, if any, of the total value of programming carried on [A] ______would you say is accounted for by the . . ." (Start with "checked" program type.)

"And what percentage, if any, of the total value of programming carried on [A] ______would you say is accounted for by the . . ." (Read next program type.)

GO THROUGH REST OF LIST THIS WAY.

Start Point: Type of programming: Percentage:

( ) Live professional and college team sports shown on (SIG. A). __ __

( ) Station produced programs shown exclusively on (SIG. A). This includes local news, public affairs, children' s programs and talk shows hosted by the station' s own personalities. __ __

( ) Syndicated shows, series, and specials other than children' s or religious programs shown on (SIG. A). __ __

( ) Movies shown on (SIG. A). __ __

( ) Syndicated children' s programming shown on (SIG. A). __ __

( ) Devotional and religious programming shown on (SIG. A). __ __

Other Programming shown on (SIG. A). (Ask respondent to specify type of programming. Probe with "anything else?") __ __

______

______.

(THIS MUST TOTAL TO 100%!) TOTAL 100%

4

"The next question asks similar information for the programming available on [SIGNAL B] ______."

4. "Again, assume the total value of all the programming now carried on [SIGNAL B]______equals 100 percent. I' ll read a list of seven different program categories. I' ll give you a chance to think about each one and jot them down if you wish. Then, I will read the list again and get your estimates of each category' s value. The sum must total to 100 percent.

(Read program types in order starting with the "checked" programming type. Read "Other" last.)

"What percentage, if any, of the total value of programming carried on [B] ______would you say is accounted for by the . . ." (Start with "checked" program type.)

"And what percentage, if any, of the total value of programming carried on [B] ______would you say is accounted for by the . . ." (Read next program type.)

GO THROUGH REST OF LIST THIS WAY.

Start Point: Type of programming: Percentage:

( ) Live professional and college team sports in French, excluding Canadian Football League games, shown on (SIG. B). __ __

( ) Canadian produced news, public affairs, religious, and documentary programs shown on (SIG. B). This includes both Canadian network and station produced programs. __ __

( ) U.S. syndicated series, movies, and specials dubbed in French and shown on (SIG. B). __ __

( ) Sports programming such as the Olympics, Canadian Football League games, skating, skiing, tennis, and auto racing shown on (SIG. B). __ __

( ) Canadian produced series, movies, arts and variety shows, and specials shown on (SIG. B). This does not include children' s programming. __ __

( ) Canadian produced children' s programming shown on (SIG. B). __ __

Other Programming shown on (SIG. B). (Ask respondent to specify type of programming. Probe with "anything else?") __ __

______

______.

(THIS MUST TOTAL TO 100%!) TOTAL 100%

5

"The next question asks similar information for the programming available on [SIGNAL C] ______."

5. "Once again, assume the total value of all the programming now carried on [SIGNAL C] ______equals 100 percent. I' ll read a list of seven different program categories. I' ll give you a chance to think about each one and jot them down if you wish. Then, I will read the list again and get your estimates of each category' s value. The sum must total to 100 percent.

(Read program types in order starting with the "checked" programming type. Read "other" last.)

"What percentage, if any, of the total value of programming carried on [C] ______would you say is accounted for by the . . ." (Start with "checked" program type.)

"And what percentage, if any, of the total value of programming carried on [C] ______would you say is accounted for by the . . ." (Read next program type.)

GO THROUGH REST OF LIST THIS WAY.

Start Point: Type of programming: Percentage:

( ) Live professional and college team sports shown on (SIG. C). __ __

( ) Station produced programs shown exclusively on (SIG. C). This includes local news, public affairs, children' s programs and talk shows hosted by the station' s own personalities. __ __

( ) Syndicated shows, series, and specials other than children' s or religious programs shown on (SIG. C). __ __

( ) Movies shown on (SIG. C). __ __

( ) Syndicated children' s programming shown on (SIG. C). __ __

( ) Devotional and religious programming shown on (SIG. C). __ __

Other Programming shown on (SIG. C). (Ask respondent to specify type of programming. Probe with "anything else?") __ __

______

______.

(THIS MUST TOTAL TO 100%!) TOTAL 100%

6

6. "My final questions are for demographic purposes only. (In whole years.) Please tell me..." a. "How many years have you been in your present job?" ___ b. "How many years have you worked for this cable system?" ___ c. "For how many years have you been responsible for deciding which distant television stations this system carries? ___ d. "How many years have you worked in the cable television industry?" ___ e. "How old are you?" ___ f. Gender of respondent. (OBSERVATION ONLY.) Male 1 Female 2

7. "Finally, let me verify that the name and address we have for you is correct, so that we can send you your honorarium." (Check this with the information on the first page of the call record sheet.)

"Thank you for your help with our survey."

7

Questionnaire 2005 A Form A Distant Signal Questionnaire Approved 08/23/05

"Hello, I am (interviewer name) calling from Westat, a research firm located in Rockville, Maryland. I would like to speak to ______; s/he is expecting my call."

[If respondent not available, set up appointment to callback, record on call record form.]

When respondent comes on, say:

"Hello Mr./Ms. ______, I am (interviewer name) calling from Westat, a research firm located in Rockville, Maryland. We recently "faxed" you a letter saying that we would be calling about a survey on cable television channel decisions. We said in the letter, that the interview will take less than ten minutes and we will pay you $75.00 for your time. The results will be combined for statistical purposes, but your individual responses will remain anonymous."

"May we proceed with the interview?"

Yes No --> "When is a convenient time to call back?" (Record date and time for callback on call record form.) No, refusal--> "Could you please tell me why you have decided not to participate?" (Record verbatim.)

______"Any other reason?" (Record verbatim.)

"First, let me go over some background information."

1a. "As I understand it you are the person primarily responsible for deciding which television stations your cable system carries. Is that correct?"

Yes 1 (1b) No --> "Could you tell me the name and title of the person at your cable system 2 who is responsible for deciding which television stations the system offers?"

[Record name:______title:______]

"May we reach him/her at this same number?"

Yes 1 No--> "May I have the number where he/she can be reached?" 2 ______[Record area code and number.] (Thank respondent and terminate interview.)

1 1b. "Were you responsible for deciding which television stations this cable system carried during 2005?" Yes 1 (1c) No--> Ask: 2

"Is the person who was responsible for deciding which television stations to carry in 2005 still working at this cable system?" No (Thank respondent and terminate interview.) 2 Yes 1

[Record name:______title:______]

"May we reach him/her at this same number?"

Yes 1 No--> "May I have the number where he/she can be reached?" 2 ______[Record area code and number.] (Thank respondent and terminate interview.)

1c. "In addition to selecting television stations, are you, or someone you supervise, responsible for making the budget decisions or recommendations associated with station carriage?"

Yes 1 No--> "How are these budget decisions made?" (Record verbatim.) 2

______

______

2a. "According to public records, your cable system currently carries a number of distant television stations and/or cable networks.” [If asked, “Distant television stations are broadcast stations that do not originate in your local television market."]

For the Signal A List:

[Determine if each distant Signal A was carried in 2005.] Y N D/K "During 2005, has ______been carried by your cable system?" 1 2 3 "During 2005, has ______been carried by your cable system?" 1 2 3 "During 2005, has ______been carried by your cable system?" 1 2 3

[Record at Q2b the first Signal A carried during 2005 and go to Signal B List. If no Signal A has been carried during 2005, ask "Any distant superstation carried in 2005?" Yes ______(RECORD AT Q2b.) 1 No --> (DO NOT ASK ABOUT SIGNAL A ON REST OF SURVEY.) 2

2

Then for the Signal B List:

[Determine if each distant Signal B was carried during 2005.]

Y N D/K "During 2005, has ______been carried by your cable system?" 1 2 3 "During 2005, has ______been carried by your cable system?" 1 2 3 "During 2005, has ______been carried by your cable system?" 1 2 3

[Record at Q2b the first Signal B carried during 2005 and go to Signal C List. If no Signal B has been carried during 2005, ask "Any distant Canadian station carried in 2005?" Yes ______(RECORD AT Q2b.) 1 No --> (DO NOT ASK ABOUT SIGNAL B ON REST OF SURVEY.) 2

Then for the Signal C list:

[Determine if each distant Signal C was carried during 2005.]

Y N D/K "During 2005, has ______been carried by your cable system?" 1 2 3 "During 2005, has ______been carried by your cable system?" 1 2 3 "During 2005, has ______been carried by your cable system?" 1 2 3

[Record at Q2b the first Signal C carried during 2005 and continue. If no Signal C has been carried during 2005, ask "Any distant independent station carried in 2005?" Yes ______(RECORD AT Q2b.) 1 No --> (DO NOT ASK ABOUT SIGNAL C ON REST OF SURVEY.) 2

2b. "Okay, from what you have said your system has carried the following distant television stations during 2005."

Call letters: Yes No

SIGNAL A: ______1 2

SIGNAL B: ______1 2

SIGNAL C: ______1 2

(THANK RESPONDENT AND TERMINATE INTERVIEW IF NO SIGNAL B RECORDED AT Q2B.)

3

"The purpose of the next question is to get your perception of the relative value of the programming available on [SIGNAL A] ______."

3. "Assume the total value of all the programming now carried on [SIGNAL A] ______equals 100 percent. First, I' ll read a list of seven different program categories. I' ll give you a chance to think about each one and jot them down if you wish. Then, I will read the list again and get your estimates of each category' s value.

The sum must total to 100 percent. This means that if you felt that the seven programming categories were of equal value, you would assign each a little under 15 percentage points."

(Read program types in order starting with the "checked" programming type. Read "Other" last.)

"What percentage, if any, of the total value of programming carried on [A] ______would you say is accounted for by the . . ." (Start with "checked" program type.)

"And what percentage, if any, of the total value of programming carried on [A] ______would you say is accounted for by the . . ." (Read next program type.)

GO THROUGH REST OF LIST THIS WAY.

Start Point: Type of programming: Percentage:

( ) Live professional and college team sports shown on (SIG. A). __ __

( ) Station produced programs shown exclusively on (SIG. A). This includes local news, public affairs, children' s programs and talk shows hosted by the station' s own personalities. __ __

( ) Syndicated shows, series, and specials other than children' s or religious programs shown on (SIG. A). __ __

( ) Movies shown on (SIG. A). __ __

( ) Syndicated children' s programming shown on (SIG. A). __ __

( ) Devotional and religious programming shown on (SIG. A). __ __

Other Programming shown on (SIG. A). (Ask respondent to specify type of programming. Probe with "anything else?") __ __

______

______.

(THIS MUST TOTAL TO 100%!) TOTAL 100%

4

"The next question asks similar information for the programming available on [SIGNAL B] ______."

4. "Again, assume the total value of all the programming now carried on [SIGNAL B]______equals 100 percent. I' ll read a list of seven different program categories. I' ll give you a chance to think about each one and jot them down if you wish. Then, I will read the list again and get your estimates of each category' s value. The sum must total to 100 percent.

(Read program types in order starting with the "checked" programming type. Read "Other" last.)

"What percentage, if any, of the total value of programming carried on [B] ______would you say is accounted for by the . . ." (Start with "checked" program type.)

"And what percentage, if any, of the total value of programming carried on [B] ______would you say is accounted for by the . . ." (Read next program type.)

GO THROUGH REST OF LIST THIS WAY.

Start Point: Type of programming: Percentage:

( ) Live professional and college team sports, excluding Canadian Football League games, shown on (SIG. B). __ __

( ) Canadian produced news, public affairs, religious, and documentary programs shown on (SIG. B). This includes both Canadian network and station produced programs. __ __

( ) U.S. syndicated series, movies, and specials shown on (SIG. B). __ __

( ) Sports programming such as the Olympics, Canadian Football League games, skating, skiing, tennis, and auto racing shown on (SIG. B). __ __

( ) Canadian produced series, movies, arts and variety shows, and specials shown on (SIG. B). This does not include children's programming. __ __

( ) Canadian produced children' s programming shown on (SIG. B). __ __

Other Programming shown on (SIG. B). (Ask respondent to specify type of programming. Probe with "anything else?") __ __

______

______.

(THIS MUST TOTAL TO 100%!) TOTAL 100%

5

"The next question asks similar information for the programming available on [SIGNAL C] ______."

5. "Once again, assume the total value of all the programming now carried on [SIGNAL C] ______equals 100 percent. I' ll read a list of seven different program categories. I' ll give you a chance to think about each one and jot them down if you wish. Then, I will read the list again and get your estimates of each category' s value. The sum must total to 100 percent.

(Read program types in order starting with the "checked" programming type. Read "other" last.)

"What percentage, if any, of the total value of programming carried on [C] ______would you say is accounted for by the . . ." (Start with "checked" program type.)

"And what percentage, if any, of the total value of programming carried on [C] ______would you say is accounted for by the . . ." (Read next program type.)

GO THROUGH REST OF LIST THIS WAY.

Start Point: Type of programming: Percentage:

( ) Live professional and college team sports shown on (SIG. C). __ __

( ) Station produced programs shown exclusively on (SIG. C). This includes local news, public affairs, children' s programs and talk shows hosted by the station' s own personalities. __ __

( ) Syndicated shows, series, and specials other than children' s or religious programs shown on (SIG. C). __ __

( ) Movies shown on (SIG. C). __ __

( ) Syndicated children' s programming shown on (SIG. C). __ __

( ) Devotional and religious programming shown on (SIG. C). __ __

Other Programming shown on (SIG. C). (Ask respondent to specify type of programming. Probe with "anything else?") __ __

______

______.

(THIS MUST TOTAL TO 100%!) TOTAL 100%

6

6. "My final questions are for demographic purposes only. (In whole years.) Please tell me..." a. "How many years have you been in your present job?" ___ b. "How many years have you worked for this cable system?" ___ c. "For how many years have you been responsible for deciding which distant television stations this system carries? ___ d. "How many years have you worked in the cable television industry?" ___ e. "How old are you?" ___ f. Gender of respondent. (OBSERVATION ONLY.) Male 1 Female 2

7. "Finally, let me verify that the name and address we have for you is correct, so that we can send you your honorarium." (Check this with the information on the first page of the call record sheet.)

"Thank you for your help with our survey."

7

Questionnaire 2005 C Form C Distant Signal Questionnaire Approved 08/23/05

"Hello, I am (interviewer name) calling from Westat, a research firm located in Rockville, Maryland. I would like to speak to ______; s/he is expecting my call."

[If respondent not available, set up appointment to callback, record on call record form.]

When respondent comes on, say:

"Hello Mr./Ms. ______, I am (interviewer name) calling from Westat, a research firm located in Rockville, Maryland. We recently "faxed" you a letter saying that we would be calling about a survey on cable television channel decisions. We said in the letter, that the interview will take less than ten minutes and we will pay you $75.00 for your time. The results will be combined for statistical purposes, but your individual responses will remain anonymous."

"May we proceed with the interview?"

Yes No --> "When is a convenient time to call back?" (Record date and time for callback on call record form.) No, refusal--> "Could you please tell me why you have decided not to participate?" (Record verbatim.)

______"Any other reason?" (Record verbatim.)

"First, let me go over some background information."

1a. "As I understand it you are the person primarily responsible for deciding which television stations your cable system carries. Is that correct?"

Yes 1 (1b) No --> "Could you tell me the name and title of the person at your cable system 2 who is responsible for deciding which television stations the system offers?"

[Record name:______title:______]

"May we reach him/her at this same number?"

Yes 1 No--> "May I have the number where he/she can be reached?" 2 ______[Record area code and number.] (Thank respondent and terminate interview.)

1 1b. "Were you responsible for deciding which television stations this cable system carried during 2005?" Yes 1 (1c) No--> Ask: 2

"Is the person who was responsible for deciding which television stations to carry in 2005 still working at this cable system?" No (Thank respondent and terminate interview.) 2 Yes 1

[Record name:______title:______]

"May we reach him/her at this same number?"

Yes 1 No--> "May I have the number where he/she can be reached?" 2 ______[Record area code and number.] (Thank respondent and terminate interview.)

1c. "In addition to selecting television stations, are you, or someone you supervise, responsible for making the budget decisions or recommendations associated with station carriage?"

Yes 1 No--> "How are these budget decisions made?" (Record verbatim.) 2

______

______

2a. "According to public records, your cable system currently carries a number of distant television stations and/or cable networks.” [If asked, “Distant television stations are broadcast stations that do not originate in your local television market."]

For the Signal A List:

[Determine if each distant Signal A was carried in 2005.] Y N D/K "During 2005, has ______been carried by your cable system?" 1 2 3 "During 2005, has ______been carried by your cable system?" 1 2 3 "During 2005, has ______been carried by your cable system?" 1 2 3

[Record at Q2b the first Signal A carried during 2005 and go to Signal B List. If no Signal A has been carried during 2005, ask "Any distant superstation carried in 2005?" Yes ______(RECORD AT Q2b.) 1 No --> (DO NOT ASK ABOUT SIGNAL A ON REST OF SURVEY.) 2

2 Then for the Signal B List:

[Determine if each distant Signal B was carried during 2005.]

Y N D/K "During 2005, has ______been carried by your cable system?" 1 2 3 "During 2005, has ______been carried by your cable system?" 1 2 3 "During 2005, has ______been carried by your cable system?" 1 2 3

[Record at Q2b the first Signal B carried during 2005 and go to Signal C List. If no Signal B has been carried during 2005, ask "Any distant French language station carried in 2005?" Yes ______(RECORD AT Q2b.) 1 No --> (DO NOT ASK ABOUT SIGNAL B ON REST OF SURVEY.) 2

Then for the Signal C list:

[Determine if each distant Signal C was carried during 2005.]

Y N D/K "During 2005, has ______been carried by your cable system?" 1 2 3 "During 2005, has ______been carried by your cable system?" 1 2 3 "During 2005, has ______been carried by your cable system?" 1 2 3

[Record at Q2b the first Signal C carried during 2005 and continue. If no Signal C has been carried during 2005, ask "Any distant independent station carried in 2005?" Yes ______(RECORD AT Q2b.) 1 No --> (DO NOT ASK ABOUT SIGNAL C ON REST OF SURVEY.) 2

2b. "Okay, from what you have said your system has carried the following distant television stations during 2005."

Call letters: Yes No

SIGNAL A: ______1 2

SIGNAL B: ______1 2

SIGNAL C: ______1 2

(THANK RESPONDENT AND TERMINATE INTERVIEW IF NO SIGNAL B RECORDED AT Q2B.)

3

"The purpose of the next question is to get your perception of the relative value of the programming available on [SIGNAL A] ______."

3. "Assume the total value of all the programming now carried on [SIGNAL A] ______equals 100 percent. First, I' ll read a list of seven different program categories. I' ll give you a chance to think about each one and jot them down if you wish. Then, I will read the list again and get your estimates of each category' s value.

The sum must total to 100 percent. This means that if you felt that the seven programming categories were of equal value, you would assign each a little under 15 percentage points."

(Read program types in order starting with the "checked" programming type. Read "Other" last.)

"What percentage, if any, of the total value of programming carried on [A] ______would you say is accounted for by the . . ." (Start with "checked" program type.)

"And what percentage, if any, of the total value of programming carried on [A] ______would you say is accounted for by the . . ." (Read next program type.)

GO THROUGH REST OF LIST THIS WAY.

Start Point: Type of programming: Percentage:

( ) Live professional and college team sports shown on (SIG. A). __ __

( ) Station produced programs shown exclusively on (SIG. A). This includes local news, public affairs, children' s programs and talk shows hosted by the station' s own personalities. __ __

( ) Syndicated shows, series, and specials other than children' s or religious programs shown on (SIG. A). __ __

( ) Movies shown on (SIG. A). __ __

( ) Syndicated children' s programming shown on (SIG. A). __ __

( ) Devotional and religious programming shown on (SIG. A). __ __

Other Programming shown on (SIG. A). (Ask respondent to specify type of programming. Probe with "anything else?") __ __

______

______.

(THIS MUST TOTAL TO 100%!) TOTAL 100%

4

"The next question asks similar information for the programming available on [SIGNAL B] ______."

4. "Again, assume the total value of all the programming now carried on [SIGNAL B]______equals 100 percent. I' ll read a list of seven different program categories. I' ll give you a chance to think about each one and jot them down if you wish. Then, I will read the list again and get your estimates of each category' s value. The sum must total to 100 percent.

(Read program types in order starting with the "checked" programming type. Read "Other" last.)

"What percentage, if any, of the total value of programming carried on [B] ______would you say is accounted for by the . . ." (Start with "checked" program type.)

"And what percentage, if any, of the total value of programming carried on [B] ______would you say is accounted for by the . . ." (Read next program type.)

GO THROUGH REST OF LIST THIS WAY.

Start Point: Type of programming: Percentage:

( ) Live professional and college team sports in French, excluding Canadian Football League games, shown on (SIG. B). __ __

( ) Canadian produced news, public affairs, religious, and documentary programs shown on (SIG. B). This includes both Canadian network and station produced programs. __ __

( ) U.S. syndicated series, movies, and specials dubbed in French and shown on (SIG. B). __ __

( ) Sports programming such as the Olympics, Canadian Football League games, skating, skiing, tennis, and auto racing shown on (SIG. B). __ __

( ) Canadian produced series, movies, arts and variety shows, and specials shown on (SIG. B). This does not include children' s programming. __ __

( ) Canadian produced children' s programming shown on (SIG. B). __ __

Other Programming shown on (SIG. B). (Ask respondent to specify type of programming. Probe with "anything else?") __ __

______

______.

(THIS MUST TOTAL TO 100%!) TOTAL 100%

5

"The next question asks similar information for the programming available on [SIGNAL C] ______."

5. "Once again, assume the total value of all the programming now carried on [SIGNAL C] ______equals 100 percent. I' ll read a list of seven different program categories. I' ll give you a chance to think about each one and jot them down if you wish. Then, I will read the list again and get your estimates of each category' s value. The sum must total to 100 percent.

(Read program types in order starting with the "checked" programming type. Read "other" last.)

"What percentage, if any, of the total value of programming carried on [C] ______would you say is accounted for by the . . ." (Start with "checked" program type.)

"And what percentage, if any, of the total value of programming carried on [C] ______would you say is accounted for by the . . ." (Read next program type.)

GO THROUGH REST OF LIST THIS WAY.

Start Point: Type of programming: Percentage:

( ) Live professional and college team sports shown on (SIG. C). __ __

( ) Station produced programs shown exclusively on (SIG. C). This includes local news, public affairs, children' s programs and talk shows hosted by the station' s own personalities. __ __

( ) Syndicated shows, series, and specials other than children' s or religious programs shown on (SIG. C). __ __

( ) Movies shown on (SIG. C). __ __

( ) Syndicated children' s programming shown on (SIG. C). __ __

( ) Devotional and religious programming shown on (SIG. C). __ __

Other Programming shown on (SIG. C). (Ask respondent to specify type of programming. Probe with "anything else?") __ __

______

______.

(THIS MUST TOTAL TO 100%!) TOTAL 100%

6

6. "My final questions are for demographic purposes only. (In whole years.) Please tell me..." a. "How many years have you been in your present job?" ___ b. "How many years have you worked for this cable system?" ___ c. "For how many years have you been responsible for deciding which distant television stations this system carries? ___ d. "How many years have you worked in the cable television industry?" ___ e. "How old are you?" ___ f. Gender of respondent. (OBSERVATION ONLY.) Male 1 Female 2

7. "Finally, let me verify that the name and address we have for you is correct, so that we can send you your honorarium." (Check this with the information on the first page of the call record sheet.)

"Thank you for your help with our survey."

7

Table 5

The Average Value of Programming Shown on English-Language Canadian Signals

2004 2005 Std Std Mean Deviation Mean Deviation Live professional and college team sports, excluding Canadian 29.14 21.36 33.19 21.74 Football League games.

Canadian-produced news, public affairs, religious, and documentary programs. This includes both Canadian 23.43 20.96 16.90 12.10 network- and station-produced programs.

U.S. syndicated series, movies and specials. 12.67 8.48 7.43 8.05

Canadian-produced sports programming such as the Olympics, Canadian League games, skating, skiing, tennis and 17.81 7.17 24.62 11.75 auto racing.

Canadian produced series, movies, arts and variety shows, and specials. This does not include children's 9.67 7.23 10.10 9.28 programming.

Canadian-produced children's programming. 7.05 5.19 7.52 7.88

Other programming. 0.24 1.09 0.24 1.09

Total 100.01 100.00

Total value of Canadian-produced programming. 57.96 59.14

Respondents 21 21

Table 6

The Average Value of Programming Shown on French-Language Canadian Signals

2004 2005 Std Std Mean Deviation Mean Deviation Live professional and college team sports, excluding Canadian 23.36 10.65 23.64 7.10 Football League games.

Canadian-produced news, public affairs, religious, and documentary programs. This includes both Canadian 22.91 8.89 18.18 9.82 network- and station-produced programs.

U.S. syndicated series, movies and specials. 12.91 4.81 13.64 9.24

Canadian-produced sports programming such as the Olympics, Canadian League games, skating, skiing, tennis and 16.45 5.50 15.00 8.94 auto racing.

Canadian produced series, movies, arts and variety shows, and specials. This does not include children's 14.18 4.94 17.27 6.84 programming.

Canadian-produced children's programming. 10.18 2.71 12.27 7.86

Other programming. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 99.99 100.00

Total value of Canadian-produced programming. 63.72 62.72

Respondents 11 11

Table 7

The Average Value of Programming Shown on Canadian Signals When TBS Was Not Signal A or C

2004 2005

Std Std Mean Deviation Mean Deviation Live professional and college team sports, excluding Canadian 20.69 8.10 28.65 15.79 Football League games.

Canadian-produced news, public affairs, religious, and 20.69 7.84 15.65 11.97 documentary programs. This includes both Canadian network- and station-produced programs.

U.S. syndicated series, movies and specials. 14.08 5.55 6.53 7.53

Canadian-produced sports programming such as the Olympics, 19.38 3.84 23.06 12.44 Canadian League games, skating, skiing, tennis and auto racing.

Canadian produced series, movies, arts and variety shows, and 14.08 4.27 14.53 8.84 specials. This does not include children's programming.

Canadian-produced children's programming. 11.08 3.33 11.29 9.34

Other programming. 0.00 0.00 0.29 1.21

Total 100.00 100.00

Total value of Canadian-produced programming. 65.23 64.53

Respondents 13 17

Table 8

The Average Value of Programming Shown on Canadian Signals When TBS Was Signal A or C

2004 2005 Std Std Mean Deviation Mean Deviation Live professional and college team sports, excluding Canadian 31.58 22.11 31.33 21.67 Football League games.

Canadian-produced news, public affairs, religious, and documentary programs. This includes both Canadian network- and 25.00 21.99 19.27 10.37 station-produced programs.

U.S. syndicated series, movies and specials. 11.84 8.37 13.00 9.22

Canadian-produced sports programming such as the Olympics, Canadian League games, skating, skiing, tennis and auto 15.95 7.73 19.33 10.83 racing.

Canadian produced series, movies, arts and variety shows, and 9.26 7.59 10.33 9.16 specials. This does not include children's programming.

Canadian-produced children's programming. 6.11 4.47 6.73 5.75

Other programming. 0.26 1.15 0.00 0.00

Total 100.00 99.99

Total value of Canadian-produced programming. 56.32 55.66

Respondents 19 15

The Longitudinal Value of Canadian Programming to Cable Systems In the United States 1996 to 2005

to be submitted to

The Copyright Royalty Judges

by

Debra J. Ringold Dean and JELD-WEN Professor of Free Enterprise Atkinson Graduate School of Management Willamette University

May 2009

EXHIBIT CDN-4-B 2

Introduction:

1. This report presents and discusses the results of ten surveys of United States Form 3 cable system operators who retransmitted Canadian television stations as distant signals during the years 1996 to 2005. These studies, and the present one, were commissioned by the Canadian Claimants Group.

2. The objective of this research is to examine the stability and/or robustness of the value of Canadian programming on Canadian distant signals retransmitted by U.S. Form 3 cable system operators over time.

3. This report includes the following four sections: • Summary of Annual Survey Methodology • Summary of Longitudinal Methodology • Results • Conclusions

Summary of Annual Survey Methodology:

4. In the years 1996 to 2005, surveys of the eligible population of Form 3 cable systems retransmitting either a distant English-language or distant French-language Canadian signal were conducted. Detailed discussions of these efforts are available in three reports by Gary T. Ford and Debra J. Ringold, one submitted to the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel (in 2002) and two submitted to the Copyright Royalty Judges (both in 2009).

5. The surveys were conducted with the persons responsible for deciding which distant signals their cable systems retransmit. Respondents were experienced in making these decisions. The vast majority identified themselves as the individual responsible for making program budget decisions or recommendations.

6. Using a 100-point constant sum scale, the surveys asked about the value of seven different types of programming carried on a Canadian signal randomly chosen from those Canadian signals retransmitted by the cable system: (1) live professional and college team sports, excluding Canadian Football League games; (2) Canadian produced news, public affairs, religious, and documentary programs; (3) U.S. syndicated series, 1 movies, and specials; (4) sports programming such as the Olympics, Canadian Football League games, skating, skiing, tennis, and auto racing; (5) Canadian-produced series, movies, arts and variety shows, and specials; (6) Canadian-produced children’s programming; and (7) other programming. This approach allowed a signal-specific determination of the relative value of Canadian-produced programming compared to programming produced by other claimants on the same signal.

7. Similar categories of programming shown on a randomly chosen superstation or cable network TBS and a randomly chosen U.S. independent station carried by the respondents' systems were also evaluated to reduce the chances that respondents would guess the survey purpose or sponsor.

8. While the categories used to describe superstation or TBS, Canadian, and independent signal programming are reasonably analogous, differences in category descriptions reflect different types of programming on different types of signals. In addition, questionnaire forms reflect the language, French or English, in which Canadian programming is broadcast on a particular retransmitted signal.

Summary of Longitudinal Methodology1:

9. A longitudinal study involves analyzing data collected using the same methodology to ask the same population of respondents the same question(s) over time. It is useful in evaluating the stability and/or robustness of an estimate.

10. Stability is evidence of the reliability of a measure and is determined by surveying the same population of respondents using the same methodology over time. Stability is achieved when measure(s) reveal consistent response(s) over time.

11. Robustness is further evidence of the reliability of a measure and is

1 This discussion of longitudinal surveys and reliability of measures is drawn from Ferber, Robert and P.J. Verdoorn (1962), Research Methods in Economics and Business, New York: The Macmillan Company; Churchill, Gilbert A. Jr. (1992), Basic Marketing Research, Second Edition, Forth Worth: The Dryden Press; Malhotra, Naresh K. (2004), Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation, Fourth Edition, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, Prentice Hall.

2 determined by surveying the same population of respondents using the same methodology over time under differing conditions. Thus, robustness of an estimate refers to stability over time despite changes in conditions such as economic/political circumstances, industry structure, survey research contractors, individual respondents, and survey response rates. Robustness is achieved when measure(s) reveal consistent response(s) over time despite change.

12. Longitudinal studies also permit the evaluation of error in an estimate. The differences between the (in this case, annual) observed values of a measure and the long- run average of the observed values in repetitions of the measurement are informative. The smaller the difference between each (annual) estimate and the long-run average of the estimate, the less error associated with the estimate.

13. During the years 1996 to 2005, persons responsible for deciding which distant signals their cable systems retransmit at Form 3 cable systems retransmitting a distant Canadian signal were surveyed. The same study methodology was used in each of the ten studies.

Results:

14. During the years 1996 to 2005, response rates varied from 54% to 82% and two different survey research contractors were used. With such high response rates to each individual survey, and collectively across all surveys, nonresponse bias is unlikely.

15. During the years 1996 to 2005, economic and industry circumstances varied and a number of Form 3 cable systems retransmitting a distant Canadian signal came under new ownership, were the object of mergers, and/or changed status with respect to these hearings. During this period, a number of Form 3 systems retransmitting a distant Canadian signal changed individuals responsible for selecting distant signals for retransmission, and participated some years but refused in other years.

16. During the years 1996 to 2005, cable system operators who transmitted Canadian signals reported that Canadian Claimant programming constituted from 58% to 64% of the total programming value provided by imported Canadian signals. A weighted average of these results reveals that, for this period, Canadian programming constituted

3 about 61% of the total programming value provided by imported Canadian signals.2 Inspection of Figure 1, attached, reveals that the relative value of Canadian programming on distant Canadian signals to cable systems during the period 1996 to 2005 is remarkably stable, robust, and error free.

17. During the years 1996 to 2005, cable system operators who transmitted Canadian signals reported that Joint Sports programming constituted from 24% to 31% of the total programming value provided by imported Canadian signals. A weighted average of these results reveals that, for this period, Joint Sports programming constituted about 27% of the total programming value provided by imported Canadian signals. The ten year results for Joint Sports programming can be seen in Figure 1, attached.

18. During the years 1996 to 2005, cable system operators who transmitted Canadian signals reported that Program Supplier programming constituted from 8% to 14% of the total programming value provided by imported Canadian signals. A weighted average of these results reveals that, for this period, Program Supplier programming constituted about 11% of the total programming value provided by imported Canadian signals. The ten year results for Program Supplier programming can be seen in Figure 1, attached.

Conclusions:

19. In my opinion, these results are both stable and robust and therefore, can be relied upon to accurately estimate the value of Canadian programming on distant Canadian signals imported by cable systems in the U.S.

20. These surveys strongly support the conclusion that cable system operators who retransmit Canadian signals do so primarily for their unique Canadian programming.

21. Over a ten year period, Canadian programming constituted, on average, about 61% of the total programming value provided by imported Canadian signals.

2 In this context, the weighted average is equal to averaging all of the responses over the ten year period. The number is derived by multiplying the number of responses for each year by the average value for just that year, totaling those figures, and then dividing by the total number of responses for all ten years. 4

The Longitudinal Value of Programming on Distant Canadian Signals Retransmitted by U.S. Cable Systems 1996 to 2005

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40% Annual SurveyAnnualResults

30%

20%

10%

0% 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 CCG 64% 63% 59% 58% 59% 64% 59% 59% 60% 60% JSC 24% 25% 29% 28% 26% 26% 31% 28% 27% 30% PS 11% 11% 11% 13% 14% 8% 10% 10% 13% 10% n 47 49 54 50 52 39 38 40 32 32 Response Rates 75% 72% 82% 82% 80% 60% 58% 63% 54% 62%

Figure 1

An Evaluation ofthe 2004 and 2005 Bortz Studies And the Methodology Used by Linda McLaughlin to Augment the Bortz Survey Regarding the Value ofProgramming on Canadian Distant Signals

by

Gary T. Ford, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Marketing Kogod School of Business American University Washington, D.C.

Prepared for:

Canadian Claimants Group 2004-2005 Cable Copyright Royalty Distribution Proceedings December 2009

1 An Evaluation ofthe 2004 and 2005 Bortz Studies And the Methodology Used hy Linda McLaughlin to Augment the Bortz Survey Regarding the Value ofProgramming on Canadian Distant Signals

This written report is submitted on behalf of the Canadian Claimants Group to rebut the 2004 and 2005 Bortz Surveys and the adjustments to those Surveys proposed by Linda McLaughlin.

I. Qualifications and Background.

I am Emeritus Professor of Marketing at the Kogod School of Business at American University, where formerly, 1was Chair and Professor of Marketing. I was also Chair and Associate Professor of Marketing in the College of Business and Management at the University of Maryland at College Park and Visiting Professor in the Department ofApplied Economics at Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium.

During my academic career, I taught undergraduate and MBA courses in Marketing Research and Doctoral Seminars on Research Methodology, as well as Marketing Management, Consumer Behavior and other courses. The Marketing Research and Research Methods courses I have taught include material on survey research design, questionnaire design, sampling, content analysis, statistical methods and other topics. I supervised the research design, questionnaire design, sampling procedures, content analysis, statistical analysis and final reports of over a hundred surveys completed in the Marketing Research courses I have taught.

In addition to the surveys 1supervised as a professor, I have also designed and conducted surveys for both my academic research and litigation. I have published over forty academic articles and papers, the vast majority ofwhich involve surveys that I and my co-authors designed, conducted and analyzed. In addition, in a

2 litigation context, I have designed, conducted, analyzed and prepared expert reports on dozens ofsurveys and have evaluated the survey research efforts of others in trademark, false advertising and antitrust matters.

My research has been published in the journal a/Consumer Research,journal 0/ Marketing,journal 0/Public Policy and Marketing,jaurnal a/Marketing Research and other journals, books and proceedings. In 1997, I was listed as one ofthe "best researchers in marketing" in the article "The Best Researchers in Marketing," published in the Marketing Educator (Summer).

A peer-reviewed article I published in thejournal a/Public Policy and Marketing in November 2005 is entitled, "The Impact of the Daubert Decision on Survey Research Used in Litigation."l This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the criteria that are being used to admit or exclude surveys from trials since the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). This article recently received the Kinnear Award signifying the best article published in the journal 0/Public Policy and Marketing between 2003 and 2005.

I served on the Board of Directors of the Association for Consumer Research, the largest academic organization in the field of consumer behavior, for four years. I served as an Editorial Review Board member for the journal 0/Marketing for over ten years. At present, I serve on the Editorial Review Board ofthejournal a/Public Policy and Marketing and frequently review manuscripts for thejournal a/Consumer Research,journal 0/ Marketing Research,journal a/Marketing and other journals and conferences. Currently, I serve as one offour academic representatives ofthe American Marketing Association (the largest professional association for marketing professors) to the U.S. Census Bureau regarding planning for the 2010 Census.

1 Ford, G. 2005. "The Impact of the Daubert Decision on Survey Research Used in Litigation." journal a/Public Policy and Marketing, 24(2): 234-252.

3 I have served as a Marketing Expert for the Federal Trade Commission in both consumer protection and antitrust matters. I have also served as a Marketing Expert for the Department ofJustice, the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Federal Communications Commission.

A complete copy of my resume, including a list ofmy publications over the last ten years and a list ofthe proceedings in which I have testified in the last four years is attached at Appendix A.

In 1996, during the rebuttal phase of the 1990-1992 Cable Royalty Distribution Proceedings, I provided a comprehensive written evaluation of the Bortz survey methodology in a previous CARP proceeding, entitled "An Evaluation of the 1991 and 1992 Bortz Studies With Respect to Programming on Canadian Distant Signals," Gary T. Ford ("1990-92 Ford Written Rebuttal"). I also testified orally in that proceeding.

II. Introduction and Conclusions.

The report has two primary objectives: First, it evaluates the 2004 and 2005 Bortz surveys in terms ofwhether they can provide a reliable estimate of imported Canadian distant signals. Second, it evaluates whether the methodology used by Linda McLaughlin on behalfofPTV to "augment" the Bortz sample results can be validly applied to estimate the value of Canadian distant signals.2

In my opinion, the Bortz survey does not provide reliable information regarding the value ofprogramming on Canadian distant signals for two reasons. First, the disproportionate stratified sampling plan "undersamples" strata 1 and 2 (the low royalty strata) and "oversamples" strata 3 and 4 (the high royalty strata). Second, the

2 The complete title of the Bortz survey report is, "Cable Operator Valuation of Distant Signal Non-Network Programming: 2004-05," June 1, 2009 ("Bortz Report"). The complete title ofthe McLaughlin report is: "Testimony of Linda McLaughlin," September 30, 2009.

4 focus ofthe questionnaire on the unaided recall of"most popular" programming just before the key question on relative value of programming on imported distant signals has the effect ofreducing the likelihood that cable operators will think about the value ofniche programming to their systems.

Regarding the first point, because the cable systems that import Canadian distant signals are most likely to be in strata 1 and 2, the effect of the Bortz sample is to undersample the strata most likely to import Canadian distant signals. This issue is glaringly obvious in the Bortz sample of French-language Canadian distant signals with samples of one and two cable systems in 2004 and 2005, respectively, which imported Canadian French-language distant signals. The sample of cable systems which imported Canadian English-language is also problematic because it was weighted disproportionately to cable systems in Bortz strata 3 and 4, while the approximately two-thirds of the Cable systems that imported Canadian English­ language distant signals were in strata 1 and 2. In sum, the Bortz sample of cable systems that import Canadian distant signals is both too small and unrepresentative ofthe underlying population.

Regarding the second point, by eliciting top-of-the-mind awareness of the most popular distant signal programming just before the relative value question, the Bortz questionnaire increases the likelihood that niche programming will not be mentioned by respondents. Because of the likelihood that respondents will strive to provide internally consistent responses and because the relative value question is a "zero sum game," the value given to niche programming is likely to be diminished by the biases introduced by the most popular programming question.

For these reasons, it is my opinion that it would not be prudent to rely on the Bortz survey results for making copyright royalty awards regarding the value of Canadian distant signals.

It is also my opinion that the "augmentation" methodology proposed by Linda

5 McLaughlin cannot be used to estimate the value of imported Canadian distant signals. McLaughlin "augmented" the value of programming results by adding imputed values for PTV and Canadian programming from systems that imported only PTV, Canadian or both types ofsignals. McLaughlin's approach assumes that the Bortz disproportionate sampling plan resulted in a sample that is representative of the underlying population of imported Canadian distant signals. The Bortz sample is not at all representative of the underlying population of cable systems that import Canadian signals because it undersamples cable systems that import Canadian distant signals in Bortz strata 1 and 2 and oversamples them in strata 3 and 4. In addition, McLaughlin's augmentation approach does nothing to cure the second problem of bias created by the Bortz questionnaire. Consequently, McLaughlin's augmentation approach cannot be applied to estimate the value of Canadian distant signals.

There are five additional sections in the report: • Section III summarizes the objective of the Bortz studies and provides an overview ofits methodology. • Section IV provides a summary and evaluation ofthe strengths and weaknesses of the stratified sampling plan used and the questionnaire design in the Bortz studies for estimating the value of programming on Canadian distant signals. • Section Vsummarizes my conclusions regarding the reliability of the Bortz survey regarding the value of Canadian distant signals. • Section VI summarizes the McLaughlin methodology and evaluates whether it can be validly applied to augment the Bortz sample to estimate the value of Canadian distant signals. • Finally, Section VII presents my conclusions that the Bortz and McLaughlin reports cannot be used to reliably estimate the value of imported Canadian distant signals. III. Summary and Overview ofthe Bortz Study Objective and Methodology.

6 The Bortz Report states that the "cornerstone" of the Bortz approach for estimating the value of distant signals is a survey of a "random sample ofcable operators [who are asked] how they would allocate a fixed budget among the different programming categories on the distant signals they actually carried in the preceding year (Le., a 'constant sum' approach)." (Bortz Report at 1-2.) Historically, the fact finders have given great weight to the Bortz methodology regarding the Program Suppliers (PS), Joint Sports Claimants OSC) and the commercial television broadcasters (NAB) because it is focused on, "the relative value of the type of programming actuaIly broadcast in terms of attracting and retaining subscribers." For example, in 2003, the CARP panel stated it accepted, "the Bortz survey as an extremely robust (powerfuIly and reliably predictive) model for PS, JSC and NAB - for both the basic fund and the 3.75% fund." In re Distribution of1998 & 1999 Cable Royalty Funds, No. 2001-8 CARP CD 98-99, at 31 (CARP Oct. 21, 2003) [hereinafter 1998-99 CARP Report).

The CARP panel also concluded, however, that methodologies other than the Bortz survey would, "be relied upon to determine the relative values of PTV, Music and Canadians." 1998-99 CARP Report at 31. Furthermore, the Bortz Report acknowledges that "it is appropriate to adjust the Bortz survey results to account for cable operators that carry only PBS and/or only Canadian distant signals [neither of which are included in our survey)."3 [Bortz Report at 5.)

In both the 2004 and 2005 studies, Bortz and Company used the same general approach: A telephone survey asked individuals most responsible for programming decisions a series of questions concerning [a) unaided recaIl of the types of programming that is most popular with their subscribers, [b) unaided and aided recaIl of the types of programming featured in advertising, and (c) the relative values of seven categories ofnon-network programming measured with a 100-point constant sum scale of items representing the seven categories. Since the constant sum scale approach requires the respondent to aIlocate a percentage of a finite pool

3 As is discussed subsequently, although this adjustment is necessary, it is not sufficient to fully account for the value of Canadian distant signals.

7 (in this case, 100 percentage points of a hypothetical programming budget) to each of the program categories, an increased valuation of one program type can only be made at the expense of another. Thus, it is assumed this is similar to "real-world" budget allocations in which a fixed set of resources must be divided among competing possible uses. The Bortz studies used the constant sum scale on programming categories (or in the case ofPTV and the Canadians, entire signals) aggregated across all ofthe distant signals the cable system imported. Although there have been some wording changes over the years in the definitions ofthe constant sum scale question used to assess the value of non-network programming, the same question was used in both 2004 and 2005. 4

As in previous years, cable systems in the 2004 and 2005 samples were selected by disproportionate stratified sampling from the population of cable systems, which were grouped into four strata based on size of royalty payments. The decision to base the disproportionate sampling plan on royalty payments has the effect of sampling relatively more cable systems from strata with large variances in royalty payments and relatively fewer cable systems with smaller variances. Because the variances are larger in strata with larger mean royalty payments, the effect of this stratification plan was to "oversample" from the larger royalty payment strata and "undersample" from the smaller strata relative to proportionate sampling from each stratum.

IV. The Affect ofthe Disproportionate Stratified Sampling Plan and Questionnaire Design on the Estimate ofthe Value ofCanadian Distant Signals.

As noted above, the Bortz studies grouped cable systems into four strata by size of royalty payment and then used disproportionate sampling to minimize the variance of the estimate of royalty payments. This approach ensures a minimum sample size that is able to estimate the mean and variance of the total of royalty payments over the population of cable systems. Unfortunately, using this basis for stratif'ying the

4 See, 1990-92 Ford Written Rebuttal.

8 sample is not consistent with the objective of the Bortz studies. According to Mr. Trautman's written direct testimony, for 2005, the Bortz surveys "sought to determine how cable operators valued, on a relative basis, the different categories of non-network distant signal programming that they carried in those years." (Bortz Report at 1-2.)

There is nothing per se inappropriate about using disproportionate stratified sampling in survey research. In fact, disproportionate stratified sampling allows the researcher to minimize sample size for a given level ofstatistical precision and confidence regarding the variable of interest. Thus, disproportionate stratified sampling is frequently used when it is difficult and/or costly to obtain sample elements. It is also used to ensure that observations will be drawn from each stratum in the population.

In the Bortz research, the variable being estimated is "relative value to your cable system of each type ofprogramming actually broadcast by the stations I mentioned in 2004" (or 2005). Since the Bortz studies were attempting to estimate the value of programming types, ideally, stratification should have taken place as a measure ofthe programming types appearing on distant signals carried by cable systems. This would have ensured that the surveys included a sufficient number of observations for each type of programming regardless of the size of royalty payments. Otherwise, the researcher is not guaranteed that there will be enough observations from signals carrying each type ofprogramming to develop valid estimates of the relative value of each type of programming on the distant signals that cable system operators buy. Essentially, the Bortz stratification plan oversampled from relatively large systems and undersampled from smaller systems, as will be shown in the following tables. Since the cable systems that imported Canadian distant signals were smaller rather than larger, the disproportionate sampling plan used in the Bortz survey actually diminished the accuracy of the estimates of the relative value of Canadian distant signal programming.

9 The following data in Tables 1 and 2 illustrate the problems with the way the Bortz samples were stratified. According to the Bortz study, and data produced to the Canadian Claimants Group during discovery, the 2004 and 2005 distribution of population elements and cable systems sampled was as follows:

Table 1 Sample and Population Comparisons for Bortz Data (2004)

Royalty Stratum Population of Respondents: No. Respondents Form 3 Systems: as Percentage ofStratum Size: (000) # % # % ---'!to. 1: $0-20,628 936 56.8 37 22.8 03.9* 2: $20,629-59,628 432 26.2 36 22.2 08.3 3: $59,629-207,129 234 14.2 69 42.6 29.5 4: $207.130+ 045 02.7 20 12.3 44.4 Total 1,647 99.9%t 162 99.9%t

Source: Bortz Report, Table A-2, p. 46: Bortz data produced in discovery. Notes: *for example, 37/936 = 3.9%: fResult is less than 100.0% due to rounding.

Table 2 Sample and Population Comparisons for Bortz Data (2005)

Royalty Stratum Population of Respondents: No. Respondents Form 3 Systems: as Percentage ofStratum Size: (000) # % # % ---.%. 1: $0-23,844 755 54.6 30 17.5 03.9* 2: $23,845-65,344 378 27.4 39 22.8 10.3 3: $65,345-239,844 210 15.2 80 46.8 38.1 4: $239.845+ 039 02.8 22 12.9 56.4 Total 1,382 100.0% 171 100.0%

Source: Bortz Report, Table A-2, p. 46: Bortz data produced in discovery. Notes: *for example, 30/755 = 3.9%.

Table 1 shows that 56.8% ofall cable systems in the 2004 Bortz study population paid royalty payments ofless than $20,629 and at the other end of the size spectrum, only 2.7% of cable systems paid royalty payments of $207,130 or more. With the

10 stratified sampling approach based on royalty payments, the Bortz survey's final sample ended up with less than 4% [37/936 =3.9%) of the smallest cable systems compared to more than forty percent of the largest systems [20/45 = 44.4%).

Furthermore, although only 16.9% [14.2% + 2.7%) of all cable systems were in Bortz's two largest strata, 54.9% [42.6% + 12.3%) of the respondents were from those strata. The disparity in the data is larger for 2005. As is shown in Table 2, 3.9% ofthe systems in the smallest dollar value stratum were sampled as compared to 54.6% of those in the largest dollar value stratum. Additionally, 59.7% [46.8% + 12.9%) of the respondents came from the strata 3 and 4, although they account for 18.0% [15.2% + 2.8%) of the population. ln sum, Tables 1 and 2 show that the Bortz stratified sampling plan resulted in a relatively larger sample than would be expected by chance in the two largest strata and a relatively smaller sample in the two smallest strata. Had the 2004 sample been selected with proportionate stratified samples, approximately 57% of the sample would have been from stratum 1, 26% would have been from stratum 2,14% would have been from stratum 3 and only 3% would have been from stratum 4. As will be shown next, the actual sampling distribution in the Bortz surveys resulted in disproportionately smaller samples of cable systems that import Canadian distant signals.

Of the 61 U.S. cable systems that imported one or more Canadian distant signals in the first accounting period of 2004, 23 cable systems paid royalties of less than $20,628; 20 paid royalties between $20,629 and $59,628; 13 paid royalties of between $59,629 and $207,129; and five paid royalties of $207,130 or more. This information is presented in Table 3, below:

Table 3 Language ofimported Canadian Siguals by Bortz Strata (2004-1)

11 Both Total Distr. French French & English Import By Royalty Signals English Signals Canad. Bortz Stratum Only: Signals Only: Signals: Strata: roOD) # systems # systems # systems # systems ------"!o. 1: $0<20,628 07 o 16 23 37.7%* 2: 20,629-59,628 06 02 12 20 32.8% 3: $59,629-207,129 03 01 09 13 21.3% 4: $207.130+ 00 00 05 05 08.2% Total 16 03 42 61 100.0% Total % 26.2** 04.9 68.9 100.0%

Source: Cable Data Corporation; Bortz Report, Table A-2, p. 46. Notes: *For example, 23/61 = 37.7%; **16/61 = 26.2%.

As is shown in Table 4, below, the data for 2005 are similar:

Table 4 Language ofImported Canadian Signals by Bortz Strata (2005-1)

Both Total Distr. French French & English Import By Royalty Signals English Signals Canad. Bortz Stratum Only: Signals Only: Signals: Strata: roOD) # systems # systems # systems # systems % $0<23,844 07 01 12 20 39.2%* 23,845-65,344 04 02 09 15 29.4% $65,345-239,844 04 01 09 14 27.5% $239,845+ 00 00 02 02 03.9% Total 15 04 32 51 100.0% Total % 29.4** 07.8 62.7 99.9%t

Source: Cable Data Corporation; Bortz Report, Table A-2, p. 46. Notes: *For example, 20/S1 = 39.2%; **IS/SI = 29.4%; tResult is less than 100.0% due to rounding.

The data in Tables 3 and 4 show the cable systems that import Canadian distant signals are predominantly in Bortz strata 1 and 2. In fact, approximately 71 % of the cable systems that import Canadian distant signals are in Bortz strata 1 and 2 (i.e., in 2004,37.7% are in stratum 1 and 32.8% are in stratum 2 fora total of 70.5%). In 2005, the same total is approximately 69%. Since the Bortz sampling approach disproportionately sampled more systems from strata 3 and 4, the effect was to

12 diminish the probability of reaching a representative sample of Canadian distant signals.

This is especially so for the French-language signals which are overwhelmingly imported by cable systems in strata 1 and 2. Specifically, in 2004, 78.9% (15 of 19) and in 2005,74% (14 of 19) of the cable systems that imported only a French­ language Canadian distant signal or both French and English Canadian distant signals were in Bortz strata 1 or 2. (See Tables 3 and 4.) Since the only logical explanation for paying royalty fees to import a French-language signal is to provide programming valued by a niche market segment of French speakers, a sampling plan that disproportionately misses those cable systems cannot provide accurate information about their value to the cable system. This is not a trivial matter because, in 2004 and 2005, French-language distant signals were imported by 31.1 % (26.2% + 4.9%) and 37.2% (29.4% + 7.8%), respectively, ofthe cable systems importing a Canadian distant signal. (See Tables 3 and 4.) Thus, it is important to have a sufficient sample of cable systems that import French-language signals to draw any conclusions about the value of those signals.

Based on the Bortz survey data provided in discovery and Statement ofAccount Data provided by Cable Data Corporation, I determined that the Bortz 2004 survey sampled and interviewed only one cable system operator who imported a Canadian French-language distant signal. In 2005, the Bortz survey sampled only four and interviewed three respondents who imported a Canadian French-language distant signal. In sum, the Bortz sampling plan did not interview a sufficient number of cable system operators who imported French-language distant signals to draw any conclusions about the value of imported French-language signals.S

S By way of contrast, the 2004 Ford-Ringold survey interviewed 11 of the 19 cable system operators who imported a French-language distant signal, and the 2005 survey interviewed 11 of the 19 cable system operators who imported a French­ language distant signal. (Compare Exhibit CDN-4-A, App. 6, Table 6 with Tables 3 and 4, above.)

13 The same point is true about the Canadian English-language distant signals. In 2004, 66.7% ((0+2+16+12)/45) and in 2005, 66.7% ((1+2+12+9)/36) of the cable systems that imported English-language Canadian distant signals were in Bortz strata 1 and 2. (See Tables 3 and 4.) Yet, these strata account for 45% and 40% ofthe ending Bortz samples in 2004 and 2005, respectively. (See Tables 1 and 2). Consistent with this last point, although Bortz interviewed respondents from 10 cable systems that imported Canadian English-language signals in 2004, only 3 of these were from his strata 1 and 2. In 2005, the Bortz survey interviewed 13 cable systems that imported a Canadian English-language distant signal and 4 were from his strata 1 and 2. The Bortz sample disproportionately interviewed fewer respondents from the two smallest strata, which are the strata most likely to include cable systems importing Canadian distant signals. Thus, the Bortz sample is not representative ofthe cable systems that import Canadian distant signals.

This latter point is important because the larger cable systems appear to import more distant signals than do the smaller ones. In 2004, the cable systems in strata 3 and 4 in the Bortz survey that imported a Canadian distant signal imported an average of 8.13 distant signals. Of these, an average of 5.63 were commercial distant signals and an average of 1.13 were Canadian distant signals. In 2005, the comparable averages were a total of8.89 distant signals imported, ofwhich 6.33 were commercial, and an average of 1.44 were Canadian distant signals.6 In contrast, in 2004, the cable systems in Bortz's strata 1 and 2 that imported Canadian distant signals imported an average of 4.0 signals, ofwhich 2.0 were commercial and 1.0 was Canadian. For 2005, the strata 1 and 2 systems imported an average of 4.25 distant signals, of which an average of 1.75 were commercial distant signals and an average of 1.25 were

6 In both the 2004 and 2005 samples the average number ofimported distant commercial signals was inflated by single systems importing 15 and 16 signals in 2004 and 2005, respectively. If these outliers are excluded, the mean number imported distant commercial signals decreases to 4.29 in 2004 and 5.38 in 2005, and the conclusion does not change.

14 Canadian distant signals.

The fact that the cable systems in strata 3 and 4 that imported Canadian distant signals imported more commercial distant signals relative to those in strata 1 and 2 likely influenced their responses to question 2b in the Bortz survey. Question 2a in the Bortz survey listed all ofthe distant signals imported by the cable system, and then in question 2b, respondents were asked an unaided recall question about the popularity of various types of programming.7 It is more likely that cable system operators from the strata 3 and 4 systems that import an average of over five (or six) commercial stations will recall programming that appears on the commercial stations rather than programming from the one or two Canadian imported distant signals. In other words, the "most popular programming" question concerns modal categories, i.e., largest categories ofsubscribers.

As such, the questionnaire design causes the cable system operator to focus on programming that has the widest appeal, and it may cause the cable system operator to ignore other categories of programming that are enjoyed by smaller, but nonetheless profitable, segments of its subscribers. For example, suppose a category ofprogramming is most "popular" with 40% of the subscribers and three other categories are most "popular" with three groups consisting of30%, 20% and 10%, respectively, of the subscribers. The Bortz question gets respondents to reply that the first segment is the most popular, even though the other segments are important to substantial minorities of its subscribers and important to the cable system operator. The likely bias introduced by questions 2a and 2b is exacerbated by the questionnaire design because, contrary to usual practice, there was no aided recall

7 Question 2a was: "Industry data indicate that during 2004 [or 2005) your system carried the following broadcast stations from other cities." The interviewer then reads call letters, city and affiliation for each distant signal. Next, in question 2b the interviewer asked, "Thinking back to 2004 [or 2005] what types of programming broadcast by these stations, other than any national network programming from ABC, CBS and NBC, do you think were most popular with your subscribers? (DO NOT READ LIST; RECORD ALL PROGRAMMING TYPES MENTIONED)." (Bortz ReportApp B.)

15 question asking about the popularity of the various other types of programming shown on imported distant signals that respondents may have inadvertently not mentioned.8

The next question on the survey (question 3a) asked whether the programming on the imported distant signals was "featured" in subscriber acquisition and retention advertising. Since most respondents said "no" to this question, i.e., 87.0% in the 2004 survey and 93.0% in the 2005 survey, the vast majority ofrespondents go directly to question 4a, which was the key question on the Bortz survey thinking about the type of distant signal programming they had just named.

Question 4a was as follows:

8 As was discussed in my previous evaluation of the Bortz survey, the way in which responses to this question were coded also was indefensible. (See generally, 1990-92 Ford Written Rebuttal.) That is, normally, when a survey includes an open-ended question, the interviewer is required to record the verbatim response of the respondent and usually to probe (with, for example, "Anything else?") to make sure that the respondent's complete thoughts on the question have been elicited. Later, the verbatim responses of the all respondents are read and coded, by a small number of coders (who are not the interviewers) into categories of similar responses. In the Bortz survey, and absolutely contrary to accepted survey research practice, the interviewers were supplied with the following list of coded responses and allowed to code the open-ended responses by themselves: "M oVies," "Live professional and college team sports," "Syndicated shows, series and specials:' "News and public affairs programs:' PBS and other programming broadcast by non-commercial station ~" "Devotional/religious programming," and "All programming broadcast by Canadian station _." (Bortz Report App 8.) It is definitely not accepted survey research practice to allow the interviewer to listen to the respondents' verbatim answer and then make the decision about which predefined category in which to code the response because there are usually many interviewers on a study and they are likely to have varying impressions about the meaning of responses. Additionally, there is no way to go back and independently verify whether the responses were coded correctly or not. All that one has is the interpretation ofthe interviewer about what the respondent meant when he/she responded to this question. There is no record ofwhat the respondent actually said. One reason for letting interviewers do the coding is that the researcher does not really care about the answers because the question is only designed to raise the salience of programming that is likely to be mentioned in a "top ofthe mind" response.

16 "4a. Now, I would like you to estimate the relative value to your cable system of each type of programming actually broadcast by the stations I mentioned during 2004 [or 200S], other than any national network programming on ABC, CBS and NBC. That is, how much do you think each such type ofprogramming was worth, ifanything, on a comparative basis, in terms ofattracting and retaining subscribers. We are only interested in U.S. commercialstation(s) __,--- . U.S. non-commercialstation(s) and Canadian station(s) _

I'll read all the program types that were broadcast by these stations to give you a chance to think about them; please write down the categories as I am reading them. (READ PROGRAM TYPES IN ORDER OF RANDOM SEQUENCE NUMBER.) Assume you have a fixed dollar amount to spend in order to acquire all the programming actually broadcast by these stations during 2004 [or 200S] by the stations I listed. What percentage, if any, ofthe fixed dollar amount would you spend for each type of programming? Please write down your estimates and make sure they add to 100 percent.

What percentage, if any, ofthe fixed dollar amount would you spend on (READ FIRST PROGRAM TYPE)? And what percentage, if any, would you spend on (READ NEXT PROGRAM TYPE)? (COMPLETE LIST IN THIS MANNER.)

Percentage: Movies broadcast during 2004 [or 200S] by the U.S. commercial Stations I listed. Live professional and college team sports broadcast during 2004 [or 200S] by the U.S. commercial stations I listed. Syndicated shows, series and specials distributed to more than one Television station and broadcast during 2004 [or 200S] by the U.S. commercial stations I listed. News and public affairs programs produced by or for any ofthe U.S. commercial stations I listed for broadcast during 2004 [or 200S] only by that station. PBS and all other programming broadcast during 2004 [or 200S] by U.S. commercial station __. Devotional and religious programming broadcast during 2004 [or 200S] by the U.S. commercial stations I listed. All programming broadcast during 2004 [or 200S] by Canadian Station

TOTAL

PERCENTAGES MUST ADD TO 100 PERCENT; PROMPT RESPONDENT IF THEY DO NOT." (Bortz Report App. 8.)

17 It is well-known that responses to a question can be biased by the topic and/or wording ofprior questions. It is also well-known that respondents attempt to provide responses that are internally consistent.9

Clearly, to provide internally consistent responses, respondents will state that the most popular programs are also those that have the highest relative value. Suppose instead of the questions about "most popular programming" respondents were asked a series of questions about the market segments that view the programming that is shown on each ofthe signals that are imported, and then were asked question 4. If respondents thought about, and were interviewed about, segments for which they provide programming, they would have been likely to have considered the value to their system of all substantive segments, and their responses to question 4 would have been different.

Alternatively, suppose the questions about "most popular programming" and "programming featured in advertising," were deleted from the questionnaire. ln this case, it is also quite likely that the response to question 4a would have been different because respondents would not have been cued to certain programming categories. To the extent that it is reasonable to expect that there would have been different responses to question 4a under either or both ofthese scenarios, there is the likelihood that the responses to question 4a were biased by the questions that preceded it.

V. Conclusions Regarding the Reliability ofthe Bortz Survey for Estimating the Value ofProgramming on Canadian Distant Signals.

9 According to one standard survey methodology text: "In general, respondents who have formed a judgment are unlikely to start from scratch when asked to make a second, closely related judgment; rather they will probably derive the second judgment from the implications of the first, without reconsidering the original information used to form the initial judgment." Sudman, Seymour, Norman M. Bradburn and Norbet Schwarz, Thinking AboutAnswers The Application ofCognitive Processes to Survey Methodology, Jossey-Bass Publishers: San Francisco, 1996, p. 86.

18 The Bortz survey does not provide reliable information regarding the value of programming on Canadian distant signals for several reasons. The cable systems that import Canadian distant signals are predominantly in strata 1 and 2. The Bortz survey "undersampled" these strata, as evidenced by the under-represented French­ language Canadian distant signals example cited above. This undersampling of strata 1 and 2 not only lead to over-sampling of strata 3 and 4 but, more importantly, lead to results in the Bortz survey that are both too small and unrepresentative of the underlying population.

Furthermore, the Bortz survey questionnaire focuses on the recall of"most popular" programming right before respondents are asked the key question on relative value ofprogramming. This question created considerable bias in the survey results by reducing the likelihood that cable operators will think about the value of niche programming, especially as respondents strive to provide internally consistent responses in the "zero sum" nature of the relative value question.

Due to these significant sampling and bias issues, the Bortz survey results should not be used to establish the relative value of Canadian programming for the purpose of making copyright royalty awards.

VI. Summary and Conclusions Regarding the Validity ofthe McLaughlin Methodology for Augmenting the Bortz Sample to Estimate the Value of Canadian Distant Signals.

Linda McLaughlin, an economist, recalculated the Bortz survey estimates of PTV and Canadian programming on behalf of PTV. The McLaughlin analysis estimated that,

19 had all sampled systems with distant signals been considered eligible, the Bortz survey would have valued the PTV signals as 6.2% and the Canadian signals as 0.5% in 2004 and at 5.9-6.2% and 1.5-1.8% respectively in 2005. (McLaughlin Written Direct, Chart 4, p. 11).

The McLaughlin methodology made only one adjustment to the value of programming as estimated in the Bortz survey: To include cable systems that imported only either a PTV signal, a Canadian signal or only both in the estimates of the value of programming. Since the Bortz constant sum scale methodology asked about the value of programming on commercial distant signals and about entire signals for PTV and the Canadians, the Bortz survey could not obtain estimates ofprogramming for cable systems that did not import a commercial distant signal. McLaughlin argues that since cable systems pay for PTV and Canadian distant signals, arbitrarily excluding them from the survey has an adverse effect on PTV and the Canadians because their value is not included in the Bortz estimates. Essentially, McLaughlin "augments" the Bortz sample by adding back the estimated values for PTV and Canadian distant signals that Bortz excluded. In 2004, this resulted in adding 9 observations to the PTV sample and one to the Canadian sample. In 2005, seven systems only carried a PTV distant signal, one only carried a Canadian distant signal and two carried both.

McLaughlin's argument has some theoretic logic, but the implementation with regards to the Canadian signals is flawed because it assumes that the Bortz sample is representative of the underlying population of imported Canadian distant signals and, as previously discussed, the Bortz sample is not at all representative ofthe underlying population of cable systems that import Canadian French-language or English-language signals. Because the Bortz survey undersamples cable systems that import Canadian distant signals, McLaughlin's augmentation approach cannot be applied to estimate the value of Canadian distant signals.

According to CDC's compilation of carriage data for 2004, 24.6% (i.e., 15 of the 61) of cable systems that imported Canadian distant signals only imported a single distant

20 signal, and 13 ofthese 15 (or 86.7%) were in Bortz strata 1 and 2. According to comparable carriage data for 2005, 27.5% (14 of the 51) cable systems only imported a single distant signal, and 12 ofthese 14 (or 85.7%) were in Bortz strata 1 and 2. As discussed previously, because the Bortz sampling plan undersamples strata 1 and 2, it is not representative of the cable systems that (1) only import one distant signal, and (2) import that distant signal from Canada. Thus, McLaughlin's augmentation methodology cannot be applied to obtain a reliable estimate ofthe value of Canadian distant signals because the Bortz data under-represents the cable systems that only import a single (Canadian) distant signal.

Additionally, due to an apparent clerical error in the Bortz database, McLaughlin underestimated the "augmented" royalties estimated by her methodology. The Bortz sampling plan in 2004 omitted ofWashington IV, a cable system which paid royalties on $688,245, and which should have been assigned to stratum 4 (the largest royalty stratum). Since the Bortz survey intended to interview all of the stratum 4 systems and since Com cast ofWashington IV only imported one distant signal, the Canadian signal CBUT, it should have been included in McLaughlin's augmented estimate ofroyalties due the Canadians. If this error is corrected, the augmented Canadian royalty increases by $392,994.17 (i.e., $688,256 in system royalties times 100% ofvalue times 57.1% response rate) and the augmented Canadian percentage increases from 0.5% to 1.9% for 2004, using McLaughlin's methodology.

Finally, as previously noted, McLaughlin's augmentation plan does not address the bias in the questionnaire that systematically underestimates the value of Canadian programming when respondents are asked about the Canadian signal. That is, the McLaughlin testimony does not consider questionnaire design biases at all.

VII. Conclusions

McLaughlin's augmentation methodology assumes the Bortz sampling plan provides a representative sample of cable systems that only import distant signals from PTV or

21 Canada. In 2004, the Bortz sample included a clerical error and when this error was corrected, the McLaughlin estimate of the royalties due the Canadians increased by a factor of more than three (i.e., from 0.5% to 1.9%). This point illustrates the fact that having a representative sample of cable systems that import Canadian signals is crucial to both the Bortz and McLaughlin approaches for estimating the value of imported distant signals.

My analysis shows that the Bortz disproportionate sampling plan results in a sample that is not representative ofthe cable systems that import Canadian distant signals. I also conclude that the Bortz questionnaire design is biased against niche programming because of the way it prompts respondents to recall only the most popular programming before asking the crucial valuation programming question.

In short, neither the Bortz approach nor the McLaughlin approach can be used to obtain a reliable estimate ofthe actual value of Canadian distant signals to cable system operators.

22 Declaration of Gary T. Ford

2004-2005 Cable Royalty Distribution Proceeding Docket No. 2007-03 CRB CD 2004-2005

I, Gary T. Ford. declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United Slates of America that the foregoing written rebuttal testimony prepared for submission by the Canadian Claimants Group to the Copyright Royalty Judges is true and correct.

/7--/ CJ 1'2090 "1 Date I Gary T. F6rd Gary T. Ford Page 1

GARY T. FORD

5310 Hampden Lane Bethesda, MD 20814 Tele: (301) 654-3111 Mobile: (301) 706-0017 [email protected]

EDUCATION Ph.D., Marketing, STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT BUFFALO, Buffalo, NY, 1973. M.B.A., Marketing, STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT BUFFALO, Buffalo, NY, 1968. B.B.A., Accounting, CLARKSON COLLEGE, Potsdam, NY, 1966.

ACADEMIC/PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY, Kogod School of Business, Washington, D.C., Emeritus Professor of Marketing, 2008. Professor of Marketing, 1985-2007. Chairman of Marketing, 1989-94, 1999-2001, 2004, 2006-2007. CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN, Department of Applied Economics, Leuven, Belgium, 1991-1992 Visiting Professor of Marketing UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND, College of Business and Management Chairman, Faculty of Marketing, 1980-1985 Associate Professor of Marketing, 1978-1985 Assistant Professor of Marketing, 1973-1978 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Bureau of Economics, 1979-1980 Visiting Marketing Professor, Division of Consumer Protection

Gary T. Ford Page 2

PUBLICATIONS

Refereed Journal Publications 1) “Effects of Donor Recruitment Methods on Population Responses,” with E.L. Wallace, Transfusion, pp. 159-164 (March-April 1975). 2) “A Study of Prices and Market Shares in the Computer Mainframe Industry,” with B.T. Ratchford, Journal of Business, pp. 194-218 (April 1976). 3) “Some Relationships of States’ Characteristics to the Passage of Consumer Legislation,” Journal of Consumer Affairs, pp. 177-182 (Summer 1977). 4) “Perceptions of Uncertainty Within A Buying Task Group,” with R.E. Spekman, Industrial Marketing Management, pp. 395-403 (December 1977). 5) “Adoption of Consumerism Policy by the States: Some Empirical Perspectives,” Journal of Marketing Research,” pp. 125-134 (February 1978). 6) “A Study of Prices and Market Shares in the Computer Mainframe Industry: Reply,” with B.T. Ratchford, Journal of Business, pp. 125-135 (January 1979). 7) “Evaluation of Consumer Education Programs,” with P.N. Bloom, Journal of Consumer Research, pp. 270-279 (December 1979). 8) “Marketing and Marketing Research for Information Scientists,” with P. Wasserman, Journal of Library Administration, pp. 27-31 (Fall 1982). 9) “Viewer Miscomprehension of Televised Communications: A Comment,” with R. Yalch, Journal of Marketing, pp. 27-31 (Fall 1982). Reprinted in Mass Communication Review Yearbook Vol. 4, E. Wartella, D.C. Whitney and S. Windall (eds.), Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, pp. 145-150 (1983). 10) “Unit Pricing Ten Years Later: A Replication,” with D.A. Aaker, Journal of Marketing, pp. 118-122 (Winter 1983). 11) “Recent Developments in FTC Policy on Deception,” with J.E. Calfee, Journal of Marketing, 82-103 (July 1986). 12) “Inferential Beliefs in Consumer Evaluations: An Assessment of Alternative Processing Strategies,” with R.A. Smith, Journal of Consumer Research, pp. 363-371 (December 1987). 13) “Consumer Skepticism of Advertising Claims: Testing Hypotheses from Economics of Information,” with D.B. Smith and J.L. Swasy, Journal of Consumer Research, pp. 433-441 (March 1990). 14) “Normative Values for the Beck Anxiety Inventory, Fear Questionnaire, Penn State Worry Questionnaire and Social Phobia an Anxiety Inventory,” with M. Gillis, D. Haaga and A.F. Ford, Psychological Assessment, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 450-455 (1995). Gary T. Ford Page 3

15) “Can Consumers Interpret Nutrition Information in the Presence of a Health Claim? A Laboratory Investigation,” with M. Hastak, A. Mitra and D.J. Ringold, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 16-27 (1996). 16) “Informing Buyers of Risks: An Analysis of the Marketing and Regulation of All-Terrain Vehicles,” with M.B. Mazis, Journal of Consumer Affairs, pp. 90- 123 (Summer 1996). 17) “Can the Educationally Disadvantaged Interpret the FDA-Mandated Nutrition Facts Panel in the Presence of an Implied Health Claim,” with M. Hastak, A. Mitra and D. J. Ringold, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 106-117 (Summer 1999). 18) “Consumer Search for Information in the Digital Age: An Empirical Study of Pre-Purchase Search for Automobiles,” with L. Klein, Journal of Interactive Marketing, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 1-22 (Summer 2003). 19) “Application of Research on Consumer Complaint Rates to the Estimation of the Financial Impact of Prospective Product Defects,” (with D. Scheffman and D. Weiskopf), Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, pp. 130-141 (Fall 2004) 20) “The Impact of the Daubert Decision on Survey Research Used in Litigation,” Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, pp. 234-252, Fall 2005. (The members of the Editorial Review Board voted this article to receive the “Kinnear Award,” as the best article published in JPPM from 2003-05.) Refereed and Special Session, Proceedings Publications 1) “A Multivariate Investigation of Market Structure,” refereed, Combined Proceedings of the American Marketing Association, pp. 177-182 (1974). 2) “The Status of Consumer Behavior: Some Empirical Perspectives,” with P.G. Kuehl and R.F. Dyer, refereed, Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 2, pp. 51- 61 (1975). 3) “Classifying and Measuring Deceptive Advertising: An Experimental Approach,” with P.G. Kuehl and O. Reksten, refereed, Combined Proceedings of the American Marketing Association, pp. 493-497 (1975). 4) “Public Policy, The Sherman Act and the IBM Antitrust Case,” with B.T. Ratchford, refereed, Combined Proceedings of the American Marketing Association, pp. 593-596 (1975). 5) “A Functional Analysis of Macro and Micro Marketing Systems,” with W. Nickels, referred, Proceedings of the Southern Marketing Association, pp. 76- 79 (1975). 6) “Measuring the Impact of Consumer Survival Kit: Some Preliminary Results,” with P.N. Bloom and J.W. Harvey, refereed, Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 3, pp. 388-391 (1976). Gary T. Ford Page 4

7) “Consumer Research and Public Policy Formation: The Case of Truth in Contributions,” with P.G. Kuehl and P.N. Bloom, refereed, Combined Proceedings of the American Marketing Association, pp. 445-450 (1976). 8) “An Assessment of the Consumer Protection Act of 1975,” refereed, Combined Proceedings of the American Marketing Association, pp. 209-212 (1976). 9) “A Multivariate Analysis of State Consumerism Policy,” refereed, Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Institute for Decision Sciences, pp. 211- 213 (1976). 10) “The Promotion of Medical and Legal Services,” with P.G. Kuehl, refereed, Proceedings of the American Marketing Association, pp. 39-44 (1977). 11) “Consumer Protection Agencies: Their Budgets and Activities,” refereed, Proceedings of the American Marketing Association, pp. 93-96 (1978). 12) “Box-Jenkins Analysis of a Retail Sales Intervention,” with F.B. Alt, refereed abstract, Northeast Aids Proceedings, pp. 28-32 (1979). 13) “The Industrial Marketing Implications of Organizational Hierarchy Within Purchasing Departments,” with R.E. Spekman, refereed, Proceedings of the American Marketing Association, pp. 178-181 (1981). 14) “Consumer Research Issues at the Federal Trade Commission,” with J. Calfee and T. Maronick, refereed, Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 19, pp. 263- 267 (1983). 15) “Consumer Psychology Research Needs at the Federal Trade Commission,” with J. Calfee, refereed, Proceedings of the Division of Consumer Psychology, American Psychological Association, pp. 118-122 (1984). 16) “Market Forces, Information and Reduced Flammability Cigarettes,” with J. Calfee, Special Session, Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 14, pp. 274-278 (1987). 17) “An Empirical Test of the Search, Experience and Credence Attributes Framework,” with D.B. Smith and J. Swasy, special session, Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 15, pp. 239-243 (1988). 18) “Economics, Information and Consumer Behavior,” with J. Calfee, special session, Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 15, pp. 234-238 (1988). 19) “Cigarettes in the Popular Press, 1930-1960: Preliminary Research,” with D.J. Ringold and M. Rogers, special session, Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 17, pp. 467-473 (1990). 20) “Regulation of Advertising in the European Economic Community: An Overview,” special session, European Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 1, pp. 559-564 (1993). 21) “Consumer Search for Information in the Digital Age: an Empirical Study of Pre-Purchase Search for Automobiles” (with Lisa Klein) Advances in Consumer Research. (2001). Gary T. Ford Page 5

Articles in Books 1) “Problems in Education and Training in Marketing and Marketing Research in Information Science,” with P. Wasserman, Education and Training: Theory and Provision, Federation International De Documentation: The Hague, pp. 105-112 (1979) (a different version of the Journal of Library Administration article). 2) “Label Warnings in OTC Drug Advertising: Some Experimental Results,” with P.G. Kuehl, Current Issues and Research in Advertising, J.H. Leigh and C.R. Martin (eds.), Univ. of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor, pp. 115-130 (1979). 3) “Using Marketing Techniques to Increase Immunization Levels: A Field Experiment,” with R.E. Spekman, Exploring and Developing Government Marketing, S. Permut and M. Mokwa (eds.), New York, Praeger Press, pp. 304- 317 (1981). 4) “The FTC’s Product Defects Program and Consumer Perceptions of Product Quality,” with J. Calfee, Perceived Quality, J. Jacoby and J. Olson (eds.), Lexington, Massachusetts, Lexington Books, pp. 175-191 (1985). 5) “The Economics of Information: Research Issues,” with D.B. Smith and J.L. Swasy, Marketing and Advertising Regulation: The Federal Trade Commission in the 1990s, P. Murphy and W. Wilkie (eds.), pp. 300-312 (1990). 6) “Expert Depositions,” with Jack G. Stern and Kimo S. Peluso Taking and Defending Depositions 2009, co-chairs Randi W. Singer and Roland K. Tellis, Practising Law Institute, New York, pp. 177-2002 (2009). Books Edited 1) Marketing and the Library, New York, Haworth Press (1984). 2) AMA Educators Proceedings, co-edited with R.L. Lusch, G.L. Frazier, R.D. Howell, C.A. Ingene, M. Reilly and R.W. Stampf, Chicago, American Marketing Association, 403 pages (1985). 3) AMA Educators Proceedings, co-edited with S.P. Douglas, M.R. Solomon, V. Mahajan, M.I. Alpert, W.M. Pride, G.L. Frazier, J.C. Anderson and P. Doyle, Chicago, American Marketing Association, 287 pages (1987). Research Reports 1) “A Study of Parks, Recreation and Open Space in Prince George’s and Montgomery Counties, Maryland,” with R.W. Janes and P.G. Kuehl, for Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission, 253 pages (1975). 2) “A Feasibility Study to Identify Methods to Increase the Levels of Immunization of Children Receiving Services from BCHS Funded Clinics,” with R.E. Spekman, prepared for Bureau of Community Health Services, D.H.E.W., 97 pages (1979). Gary T. Ford Page 6

3) “The Effects of Reduced Flammability Cigarettes on Smoker Behavior,” with J.P. Brown and J.E. Calfee, prepared for the National Bureau of Standards, 65 pages (October 1986). 4) “Final Report on Undercover Investigation of ATV Dealers,” prepared for Consumer Product Safety Commission, 53 pages (1989). 5) Preliminary Report “ABA Digital Evidence Project Survey on Electronic Discovery Trends and Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,” prepared for ABA Section of Science & Technology, 64 pages (2005). PRESENTATIONS “The Role of Dispute Mediation in Consumer Protection,” presented at Meetings of the Practicing Justice Institute, Marymount College, New York City (1978). “The Use of Consumer Research in the Bureau of Economics, FTC,” presented at Association for Consumer Research Conference, San Francisco (1979). “The FTC’s 1983 Deception Policy Statement,” presented at Southern Marketing Association (November 1984). Proposed, organized and chaired special session on “FTC Policy Toward Deception,” at Association for Consumer Research Conference, Washington, D.C. (1984). As faculty member at AMA Doctoral Students Consortium at Notre Dame, presented “Economics of Information, Advertising and Public Policy (1986) (same session was repeated at 1987 Consortium at NYU). Proposed, organized and chaired special session on “Cigarettes and Regulation: Unintended Consequences?” at Association for Consumer Research Conference, Toronto (1986). “An Economics of Information Approach to the Regulation of Advertising,” with J. Calfee, Winter Educators Conference of the American Marketing Association (1988). “Signals in Advertising: Preliminary Results,” with D.B. Smith and J.L. Swasy, special session, Winter Educators Conference of the American Marketing Association (1991). “Content Analysis of Advertising for All-Terrain Vehicles, 1980-1987,” presented to the marketing faculty at INSEAD, Fontainebleu, France and to marketing faculty at Catholic University at Leuven (1992). “Can Consumers Interpret Nutrition Information in the Presence of a Health Claim? A Laboratory Investigation,” with M. Hastak, A. Mitra and D.J. Ringold, presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Consumer Research (1993). Gary T. Ford Page 7

“Interpretation of Health Claims and Nutrition Information by Disadvantaged Consumers,” with A. Mitra, M. Hastak and D.J. Ringold, presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Consumer Research (1994). “The Effects of Health Claims on Consumer Interpretation of FDA-mandated Nutrition Disclosures: a Mall Intercept Study,” with M. Hastak, A. Mitra and D.J. Ringold, presented at the Annual Marketing Association Public Policy Conference (1997). “Regulation of Advertising on the Internet,” with J. Calfee, presented at the Annual American Marketing Association Public Policy Conference (1997). “Consumer Search on the Internet,” with Lisa Klein, presented at the Annual American Marketing Association Public Policy Conference (1999). “Consumer Search on the Internet: Predictions from the Economics of Information,” with Lisa Klein, presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Consumer Research (1999). “Philosophy of Science and the Supreme Court: The Impact of the Daubert Decision on Survey Research Used in Litigation,” presented at Kenan-Flager School of Business, UNC at Chapel Hill (Fall 2002) and Marketing Faculty Consortium at Georgetown University (April 2003) “Philosophy of Science and the Supreme Court: The Impact of the Daubert Decision on Survey Research Used in Litigation,” presented at the Annual American Marketing Association Public Policy Conference (2003).

PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES/MEMBERSHIPS Manuscript reviewer for the American Marketing Association Educators’ Conferences, 1976-present; Southern Marketing Association Conferences, 1977- 1978; Journal of Marketing, 1979-1981, 1999-2001; Journal of Business Research, 1980; Association for Consumer Research Conferences, 1980, 1982, 1983, 1985- 1990, 1999-2000 and Journal of Consumer Research, 1987-1992, 1995, 1997-2001, Journal of Marketing Research, 1997-2000, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1999. Reviewer for AMA Dissertation Competition, 1983, 1987, 1995. Proposal reviewer for the National Science Foundation, the Ford Foundation and the Department of Energy. Discussant at AMA Consumerism Workshop, 1976; Southern Marketing Association Conference, 1977; American Marketing Association Educators’ Conference, 1978-1980; Association for Consumer Research Conference, 1978- Gary T. Ford Page 8

1980; AMA Professional Services Marketing Conference, 1981 and Public Policy Conference, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1997. Member of Program Committee, Association for Consumer Research meeting, 1980, 1984, 2000. Co-Chairman of AMA Doctoral Students Consortium, 1981. Faculty participant at AMA Doctoral Students Consortium, 1980, 1986 and 1987. Elected to Board of Directors, Association for Consumer Research, 1982-1985. Editorial Review Board, Journal of Marketing, 1982-1997. Editorial Review Board, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 1983-present. Special Editor, Marketing and Information Science Issue, Journal of Library Administration, 1983-1984. Public Policy Track Chairman, Educators’ Conference of the American Marketing Association, 1985, 1987, 2001. Book Review Editor Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 2001 to 2004. Appointed as representative from American Marketing Association to “Census Advisory Committee of Professional Associations” for 2010 United States Census.

GRANTS, CONTRACTS AND AWARDS RECEIVED Received competitively-bid contract from the Maryland National Park and Planning Commission for A Survey of Parks, Recreation and Open Space in Prince George’s and Montgomery Counties, Maryland, with R.W. Janes and P.G. Kuehl, $33,878 (Spring and Summer 1975). Received contract from National Institute of Health to develop curriculum for a two-day Cancer Communications Marketing Seminar, $8,000 (Summer 1978). Received contract for “A Feasibility Study to Identify Methods to Increase the Levels of Immunization of Children and Adolescents Receiving Services from BCHS Funded Clinics,” with Robert Spekman, from Bureau of Community Health Services, DHEW, $9,972 (Fall 1998). Received contract for “The Effects of Reduced Flammability Cigarettes on Smoker Behavior,” with John P. Brown, from Consumer Product Safety Commission and National Bureau of Standards, $19,925. Course Release, Senate Research Committee, American University (Spring 1987 and Spring 1988). Gary T. Ford Page 9

Summer Research Grants, Kogod College of Business Administration, American University (1986 and 1987). Received award for “The Effects of New Food Labels on Disadvantaged Consumers,” with M. Hastak, A. Mitra and D. Ringold, from Marketing Science Institute, $26,000 (1993) (proposal was one of six funded out of 45 entries in MSI “Using Research to Help Society Competition”). Listed as one of “The Best Researchers in Marketing,” Marketing Educator, p. 5 (Summer 1997). Received the “Kinnear Award” for the best article published in the Journal of Public Policy and Marketing between 2003 and 2005 (February 2007). Selected as “Outstanding Scholar,” Kogod School of Business, 2006. CONSULTING WORK American Automobile Association Organization of American States Insituto De Investigaciones Electricas, Mexico Dames and Moore, Inc. Public Broadcasting System Bureau of Economics, Federal Trade Commission

EXPERT AND EXPERT WITNESS ASSIGNMENTS SINCE 2005

Polo Ralph Lauren v. United States Polo Association Paul Weiss (2005) Expert Report, Rebuttal Report, deposition, testimony at trial Schick Manufacturing, Inc. v. The Gillette Company (P&G) Ropes & Gray (2005) Weil, Gotshal & Manges (2006) Expert Report, Rebuttal Report, deposition, testimony at hearing Omni Pacific, Inc. v. OmniBrands, Inc. DLA Piper (2005) Expert Report USA v. QVC, Inc. Baker & Hostetler (2005) Expert Report, deposition 9 Squared, Inc. v. Moviso, LLC and InfoSpace, Inc. Holland & Hart (2006) Expert Report, deposition Medi-Flex, Inc. v. Nice-Pak Products, Inc and Professional Disposables, Inc. Lerner, David, Littenberg, Krumholz & Mentlik (2006) Declaration, deposition Gary T. Ford Page 10

Align Techology, Inc. v. Orthoclear, Inc. and Orthoclear Holdings, Inc. Paul, Hastings, Janofsky and Walker LLP (2006) Expert report, deposition Shuttlesworth et al. v. Carleton Sheets and American Marketing Systems, Inc. Sachnoff & Weaver (2006) Expert Report American Century Proprietary Holdings, Inc. v. American Century Casualty Company and American Century Claims Service, Inc. Leydig, Voit and Mayer (2006) Expert Report, deposition Phar-Mor, Inc. v. McKesson Corporation t/d/b/a and McKesson Drug Company Shepard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton (2006) Expert Report, deposition Leggett & Platt, Incorporated et al. v. Vutek, Inc. Howrey LLP (2006) Expert Report, deposition Bass Pro Trademarks, L.L.C. v. Sportsman’s Warehouse Husch & Eppenberger, L.L.C. (2006) Expert Report, deposition Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Haute Diggety Dog, LLC et al. Arent Fox, PLLC (2006) Expert Report Ohio Savings Bank d/b/a Amtrust Bank v. Amtrust Mortgage Corporation Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP (2007) Expert Report, deposition, testimony at Daubert hearing Ecce Panis, Inc. v. Maple Leaf Foods USA Inc. Lerner, David, Littenberg, Krumholz & Mentlik (2007) Declaration, testimony at evidentiary hearing Eric Bischoff v. Boar’s Head Provisions Co., Inc, et. al Weil, Gotshal & Manges (2007) Surrebuttal report, deposition Rexall Sundown Inc. v. Perrigo Company Kelley Drye Collier Shannon (2008) Expert report, deposition Pernod Ricard LLC v. Bacardi USA Inc. Kelley Drye Collier Shannon (2008) Rebuttal report, deposition, testimony at trial The Evercare Company v. 3M Company Paul Weiss (2008) Rebuttal report, deposition DGG Properties Co., Inc. v. Giovanni’s II, Inc. Kelley Drye & Warren (2009) Expert Report Lannett Company Inc. v. KV Pharmaceutical Company Gary T. Ford Page 11

Kenyon & Kenyon (2009) Expert Report, deposition Amway Corp. v. MonaVie et. al Brinks, Hofer, Gilson and Lione (2009) Expert report, deposition The Hershey Company et al. v. Ptomotion In Motion, Inc. Kaye Sholer LLP (2009) Expert report, deposition. Philip Morris USA v. Veles Ltd. et al. Arnold & Porter (2009) Expert report, deposition Thoip (A Limited Company) v. Moses & Singer (2009) Expert Report, deposition Farberware Licensing Company, LLC v. Meyer Marketing Co., Ltd. Dykema Gossett PLLC (2009) Expert Report, deposition, testimony at trial Julie Fitzpatrick and others v. General Mills and Yoplait USA Inc. O’Melveny & Myers LLP (2009) Expert report

THESIS COMMITTEES Chairman of dissertation committees for George Coan, Dennis Pitta, Debra Ringold and Darlene Smith. Member of dissertation committee for Bill Grazer, Michael McGinnis, Dennis McDonald, Frank Franzak, Ronald Hill and Dennis McDonnell. COMMITTEE SERVICE AT AMERICAN UNIVERSITY Kogod Rank and Tenure Committee (1987-1988, 1995-1998, 2004-2005) Faculty Senate Research Committee (1985-1989) Marketing Department Faculty Recruiting Committee (1985-2007) Ad hoc Research committee, KSB (1986-1989) Committee on Faculty Relations (1988-1989) Dean’s Executive Committee (1989-1994, 1999-2001, 2004, 2006-2007) Executive Committee of the AU Chairs (1993-1994) AU Presidential Search Committee (1993-1994) President’s Committee on Strategic Planning (1995-1997) AU Provost’s Committee on Academic Programs (1995-1997) Director of MBA Field Studies (1995-1997) Chair of Executive Education Committee (1998) Faculty Advisor Men’s Soccer (2002 to 2007) Associate Dean Search Committee, KSB, (2003)

Gary T. Ford Page 12

UNDERGRADUATE COURSES TAUGHT “Principles of Marketing” “Marketing Research Methods” “Fundamentals of Marketing and Business for Communications”

GRADUATE COURSES TAUGHT “Marketing Research Methods” “Doctoral Seminar in Marketing and Public Policy” “Research Methodology for Doctoral Students” “Consumer Behavior” “Marketing Management”

November 22, 2009

2. McLaughlin Testimony

Linda McLaughlin's written direct testimony focused on adjusting the results ofthe Bortz survey. I discuss this in the section below on the Bortz survey results. Appended to McLaughlin's testimony, however, was her written testimony in the previous proceedings before the Copyright Royalty Judges on the allocation of2000-2003 royalty fees. I have therefore attached as Appendix B, incorporated herein by reference, my written rebuttal from those proceedings, in which I addressed various issues raised by McLaugWin.

3. Gruen Testimony

Arthur Gruen's testimony describes the results ofa constant-sum survey whose central valuation question is similar to that ofthe Bortz survey (discussed below). The main difference is that the Gruen survey respondents are cable subscribers, rather than employees ofa cable system. This is the wrong population to survey in order to assess the relative value of programming categories contained in distant signals. Subscribers face a very different situation from that faced by cable operators. Except when choosing among tiers, subscribers do not actually choose which distant signals to pay for. Thus, they do not allocate their cable payments toward various programming categories and have no reason to ponder the relative value ofthose categories. Given that the hypothetical marketplace at issue is one in which cable operators purchase bundles ofprogramming, the results from the Gruen survey are too distant from cable system operator decision-making to provide a basis for estimating those operators' assessment of the relative value ofprogramming bundles. Ifthe survey is nonetheless used for this purpose, however, one would have to address a basic problem in the Bortz survey, as discussed below.

4. George S. Ford Testimony

George S. Ford's testimony reports the results ofa study assessing the relative value of various programming categories as advertising vehicles. This is oflittle use in assessing the relative value ofdistant signal programming categories. Because cable systems do not receive

3

I CORRECTED I

Such an allocation left nothing or only a trivial amount for all the programming on an entire distant Canadian signal. Essentially this same point was emphasized in the Gruen testimony at p. 5 and especially at p. 26: "As Bortz survey respondents get into the rhythm ofthe questionnaire, when thinking ofprogram categories, it may be natural for them to focus on a program type as known by the general population, rather than to focus on the program categories at issue in this proceeding as they apply only to specific distant television signals." This would explain why Canadian signal allocations are irrationally low (in the sense ofbeing irreconcilable with the fact that the Canadian signals had to be paid for) and are relatively constant even as the number ofdistant signals varies. At the same time, the use ofgeneral program categories seems to explain why the Bortz study may be useful for large categories like sports, movies and series, and local commercial television programming. Further evidence ofthe Bortz study's deficiencies lies in the extraordinary effects ofthe McLaughlin adjustments, which should have had a minor effect because they added only one system to the 11 systems with Canadian signal carriage that were surveyed in 2004, and only 3 to the 13 systems surveyed in 2005. The problem ofconfusion among program categories could not exist in this adjustment because the allocations were performed manually (usually set at 100%). Adding that single unconfused observation to the 2004 sample more than doubled the estimated relative value (from 0.2% to 0.5%). Adding those three observations to the 2005 sample increased estimated relative value more than five-fold (from 0.3% to 1.5%-1.8%). That such small additions to the sample would have such large effects makes sense only ifthe sample results to which they were added were artificially low. In my opinion, the Bortz survey does not provide plausible estimates ofthe CCG shares and should not be used for allocating fees to the CCG.

6. Various Estimates ofRelative Value

Several expert reports have provided estimates ofrelative value for program content from the CCG and other claimants. The basic results are presented in Tables 3 and 4, below. Note that the results reported by the Bortz, McLaughlin and Gruen studies for the "Canadian" share are actually attempts to measure the value of all the programming on the distant Canadian signals, while George Ford and Joel Waldfogel try to measure the value ofjust the CCG

9

JOHN E. CALFEE

AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE 1150 17TH ST., NW, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 202-862-7175 ) fax: 202-862-7177

November 25, 2009

EDUCATION:

Ph.D. Economics, 1980, University of California, Berkeley M.A. International Relations, 1969, U. of Chicago B.A. Mathematics, 1963, Rice U., Houston, Texas

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS:

American Association for the Advancement of Science American Marketing Association American Public Health Association Association for Consumer Research (Director, 1988-90) Journal of Public Policy and Marketing (editorial review board, 1992-1999, 2002-present)

EMPLOYMENT: January 1995 - present: Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute. July 1994 - December 1994: Adjunct Scholar, American Enterprise Institute. July 1993 - June 1994: Visiting Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C. August 1990 - June 1993: Associate Professor of Marketing, Graduate School of Manage- ment, University Fall 1986 - June 1990: Assistant Professor of Marketing in the College of Business, Univ- ersity of Maryland. Sept. 1980 - February 1987 (part-time after Sept. 1986): Special Assistant to the Director, Bureau of Economics, Federal Trade Commission (previously Deputy Assistant Direc- tor and Staff Economist) Sept. 1975 - Sept. 1980: Graduate study, part-time teaching, U. California, Berkeley Oct. 1969 - Sept. 1975: Pacific Telephone and Telegraph, San Francisco, CA (statistical consulting, computer programming and operations). AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE PAPERS:

John E. Calfee (2009) “What Do Vitamins and Fish Oil Tell Us about Drug Research?,”Aug. 6, available at http://www.american.com/archive/2009/august/what-do-vitamins-and-fish-oil-tell-us-a bout-drug-research.

John E. Calfee (2009) “And Now, a Few Words about Antivirals for Pandemic Flu,” Health Policy Outlook, American Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C., June. Available at http://www.aei.org/outlook/100040.

John E. Calfee (2009) “What Can the Do to Sharpen Its Innovative Edge in Pharmaceuticals?,” from remarks at an event sponsored by Friends of Europe, Brussels, Mar. 16, 2009.

John E. Calfee and and Elizabeth DuPré (2009) “Learning a Little About Drug Companies from The Lancet,” The American, March 26, available at www.american.com/archive/2009/march-2009/learning-a-little-about-drug-companies- from-the-lancet.

John E. Calfee (2009) “A Troubling Supreme Judgement,” (on Wyeth v. Levine) The American, March 6, available at www.american.com/archive/2009/a-troubling- supreme-judgment/article_print.

John E. Calfee (2008) “When Patents are Not Enough: Data Exclusivity for Follow-on Biolgics,” Health Policy Outlook, American Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C., October. [Also submitted to the Federal Trade Commission in connection with its inquiry in follow-on biologics and competition.]

John E. Calfee (2008) “His Brilliant Career,” The American, Nov.-Dec., p. 96-101. Available (with a different title) at http://www.american.com/archive/2008/november- december-magazine/medicines-miracle-man

John E. Calfee (2008) “FDA Preemption and Patient Welfare in Wyeth v. Levine,” Health Policy Outlook, American Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C., October.

John E. Calfee (2008) “The Indispensable Industry,” The American, May-June.

John E. Calfee (2007) “Reform Without Reason: What’s Wrong with the FDA Amendments Act of 2007,” Health Policy Outlook, American Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C., September 2007.

[ page 2 ] John E. Calfee (2007) “Facing Realities on Follow-on Biologics,” Health Policy Outlook, American Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C., April 2007.

John E. Calfee (2007) “The Golden Age of Medical Innovation,” The American, March- April.

John E. Calfee, Mario Villarreal, and Elizabeth DuPré (2006) “An Exploratory Analysis of Pharmaceutical Price Disparities and their Implications Among Six Developed Nations,” AEI-Brookings Joint Center, March 28.

John E. Calfee (2006) “Playing Catch-up: The FDA, Science, and Drug Regulation,” Health Policy Outlook, American Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C., March 2006.

John E. Calfee (2006) “A Representative Survey of M.S. Patients on Attitudes toward the Benefits and Risks of Drug Therapy,” AEI-Brookings Joint Center, March 28.

Calfee, John E. (2005) “The Vioxx Fallout,” AEI Health Policy Outlook, Sept.-Oct. 2005.

Calfee, John E., and Scott Gottlieb (2004) “Putting Markets to Work in Vaccine Manufacturing,” Health Policy Outlook, American Enterprise Institute, November.

Joseph Antos and John E. Calfee (2004) “Of Sausage-Making and ,” Health Policy Outlook, American Enterprise Institute, January.

Calfee, John E. (2003) “The Grim Economics of Pharmaceutical Importation,” Health Policy Outlook, American Enterprise Institute, November.

BOOKS:

Barfield, Claude, and John E. Calfee (2007) Biotechnology and the Patent System: Balancing Innovation and Property Rights. AEI Press, Washington, D.C.

John E. Calfee (2000) Prices, Markets, and the Pharmaceutical Revolution. AEI Press, Washington, D.C.

John E. Calfee (1997) Fear of Persuasion: A New Perspective on Advertising and Regulation, London: Agora; North American distribution by the American Enterprise Institute.

[ page 3 ] JOURNAL ARTICLES AND REVIEWS:

Jena, Anupam B., John E. Calfee, Edward C. Mansley, and Tomas J. Philipson (2009) “‘Me-Too’ Innovation in Pharmaceutical Markets,” forthcoming, Forum for Health Economics and Policy, Berkeley Electronic Press.

John E. Calfee (2008) “It’s a Strange Market,” Harvard College Economics Review, Fall, p. 31-32.

John E. Calfee (2008) “Can Quality-Adjusted Life Year Avoidance Help in Oncology Drug Reimbursement Decisions?” Journal of Oncology Practice, v. 4, n. 1 (January), p. 8.

John E. Calfee (2007) “An Assessment of Direct-to-consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs,” Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, v. 82, n. 4, p. 357-360 (October).

John E. Calfee (2007) “A Review of Richard Epstein’s Overdose: How Excessive Government Regulation Stifles Pharmaceutical Innovation, in the DePaul Journal of Health Care Law, v. 10, n. 4, p. 513-522 (Spring).

John E. Calfee and Elizabeth DuPré (2006) “The Emerging Market Dynamics of Targeted Therapeutics,” Health Affairs, v. 25, n. 5, p. 1302-1308 (Sep.-Oct.).

John E. Calfee (2005) Review of Marcia Angell, The Truth about the Drug Companies and Jerome Kassirer, On The Take: How Medicine’s Complicity with Big Business Can Endanger Your Health, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, v. 24, n. 2 (Fall), p. 307-310.

John E. Calfee (2005) Review of Campos’ The Obesity Myth, Critser’s Fat Land, and Nestle’s Food Politics, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, v. 24, n. 1, p. 174-177 (Spring).

John E. Calfee (2005) Review of Marcia Angell, The Truth about the Drug Companies, in Chemical and Engineering News, v. 83, n. 5, p. 42-43 (Jan. 31).

John E. Calfee and Roger Bate (2004) “Pharmaceuticals and the Worldwide HIV Epidemic: Can a Stakeholder Model Work?,” Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, v. 23, n. 2 (Fall), p. 140-152.

John E. Calfee (2004) Review of Merrill Goozner, “The $800 Million Pill: The Truth Behind the Cost of New Drugs,” Nature, v. 429, p. 807 (June 24).

[ page 4 ] Janet Hoek, Philip Gendall and John Calfee (2004) “Direct to Consumer Advertising of Prescription Medicines in the United States and New Zealand: An Analysis of Regulatory Approaches and Consumer Responses,” International Journal of Advertising, v. 23, p. 197-227.

John E. Calfee (2003) “What Do We Know About Direct-To-Consumer Advertising Of Prescription Drugs?,” Health Affairs, p. W3 116-119 (web exclusive), Feb. 26.

John E. Calfee, Clifford Winston, and Randolph Stempksi (2002) “Direct-to-Consumer Advertising and the Demand for Cholesterol-reducing Drugs,” Journal of Law and Economics, v. 45 (October), p. 672-690.

John E. Calfee (2002) “Public Policy Issues in Direct-to-consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs,” Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, v. 19, n. 2, p. 174-194 (Fall).

John E. Calfee (2002) “The Role of Marketing in Pharmaceutical Research and Development,” Pharmacoeconomics, vol. 20, supp. 3, p. 77-85.

John E. Calfee, Clifford Winston,and Randolph Stempksi (2001) “Econometric Issues in Estimating Consumer Preferences from Stated Preference Data: A Case Study of the Value of Automobile Travel Time,” Review of Economics and Statistics, v. 83, n. 4, p. 699-707 (November).

John E. Calfee (2001) “Pharmaceutical Price Controls and Patient Welfare,” Annals of Internal Medicine, v. 134, n. 1 (June 5), p. 1060-1064.

John E. Calfee (2000) “The Historical Significance of ‘Joe Camel,’” Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, v. 19, n. 2, p. 168-182.

John E. Calfee (2000), “The Increasing Necessity for Market-Based Pharmaceutical Prices,” Pharmacoeconomics, v. 18, supp. 1, p. 47-57.

John E. Calfee and Clifford Winston (1998) “The Value of Automobile Travel Time: Implications for Congestion Policy,” 69 Journal of Public Economics 83-102.

Paul H. Rubin, John E. Calfee, and Mark F. Grady (1997) “BMW vs Gore: Mitigating the Punitive Economics of Punitive Damages,” Supreme Court Economic Review, v. 5, p. 179-216.

Carl Scheraga and John E. Calfee (1996) “The Industry Effects of Information and Regulation In the Cigarette Market: 1950-1965,” Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, Vol. 15, no. 2 (Fall), p. 216-226.

[ page 5 ] John E. Calfee (1996) “Some Notes on the Effects of Alcoholic Beverage Advertising in Europe,” printed in English and French in the Bulletin de l’office international de la vigne et du vin, September-October.

John E. Calfee and Debra Jones Ringold (1994) “The Seventy Percent Majority: Enduring Consumer Beliefs About Advertising,” Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, Vol. 13, no. 2 (Fall), p. 228-238.

John E. Calfee and Carl Scheraga (1994) “The Influence of Advertising on Alcohol Consumption: Review of the Evidence and An Econometric Analysis of Four Europ- ean Nations” International Journal of Advertising, vol. 13, no. 4, p., 287-310.

Calfee, John E. (1994) “Review of Viscusi's Smoking: Making the Risky Decision,” 13/1 J. of Public Policy and Marketing 168-170.

John E. Calfee and Clifford Winston (1993) “The Consumer Welfare Effects of Liability for Pain and Suffering: An Exploratory Analysis,” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity: Microeconomics, no. 1, p. 133-174.

John E. Calfee and Paul Rubin (1993) “Nontransactional Data in Managerial Economics and Marketing,” 14/2 (March-April) Managerial and Decision Economics 163-173.

Paul Rubin and John E. Calfee (1992) “Consequences of Damage Awards for Hedonic and Other Nonpecuniary Losses,” 5/3 Journal of Forensic Economics 249-260.

John E. Calfee and Paul Rubin (1992) “Some Implications of Damage Payments for Non- pecuniary Losses,” Journal of Legal Studies, v. 21, n. 2, p. 371-411 (June).

Calfee, John E. (1992) “FDA Regulation: Moving Toward A Black Market In Informa- tion,” American Enterprise, March-April, p. 34-41.

John E. Calfee and Debra Ringold (1992) “The Cigarette Advertising Controversy: Assumptions About Consumers, Regulation, and Public Debate,” Advances in Con- sumer Research, vol. 19, p. 557-562.

John E. Calfee and Janis K. Pappalardo (1991) “Public Policy Issues in Health Claims for Foods,” Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, vol. 10/1 (Spring), pp. 33-54.

Ringold, Debra Jones, and John E. Calfee (1990) “What Can We Learn From the Infor- mational Content of Cigarette Advertising? Further Analysis and a Reply,” Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, vol. 9, pp. 30-41.

[ page 6 ] John E. Calfee and Debra Ringold (1990) “What Would Happen If Cigarette Advertising and Promotion Were Banned?” Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 17, pp. 474-479.

Ringold, Debra Jones, and John E. Calfee (1989) “The Informational Content of Cigarette Advertising: 1926-86,” Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, vol. 8, pp. 1-23.

John E. Calfee (1988) “Review of Kenney's Biotechnology,” Journal of Economic Liter- ature, vol. 26, pp. 721-722 (June).

John E. Calfee and Debra Ringold (1988) “Consumer Skepticism of Advertising: What Do the Polls Show?,” Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 15, pp. 244-248.

John E. Calfee and Gary Ford (1988) “Economics, Information, and Consumer Behavior,” Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 15, pp. 234-238.

John E. Calfee (1987) “Cigarette Advertising Regulation Today: Unintended Consequen- ces and Missed Opportunities,” Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 14, pp. 264- 268.

Gary Ford and John E. Calfee (1987) “Market Forces, Information and Reduced Flam- mability Cigarettes,” Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 14, pp. 274-278.

John E. Calfee (1986) “The Ghost of Cigarette Advertising Past,” Regulation, vol. 10, no. 2, November-December, pp. 35-45; reprinted in Regulation, vol. 20, no. 3, Summer 1997, p. 41-45.

Gary Ford and John E. Calfee (1986) “Recent Developments in FTC Policy on Decep- tion,” Journal of Marketing, vol. 50, pp. 82-103 (July.)

Richard Craswell and John E. Calfee (1986) “Deterrence and Uncertain Legal Standards,” Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, vol. 2, pp. 279-303 (Fall.)

John E. Calfee (1985) “Estimating the Demand for Electric Automobiles Using Fully Dis- aggregated Probabilistic Choice Models,” Transportation Research, vol. 19B, pp. 287- 301.

John E. Calfee and Richard Craswell (1984) “Some Effects of Uncertainty on Compliance with Legal Standards,” Virginia Law Review, vol. 70, pp. 965-1003, June.

John E. Calfee, Gary Ford, and Tom Maronick (1983) “Consumer Research Issues at the Federal Trade Commission,” Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 10, 1983.

[ page 7 ] Butters, Gerard, John E. Calfee and Pauline Ippolito (1981) “Reply to Steven Kelman,” 5/2 Regulation 41-42 (March/April).

John E. Calfee (1979) “Probabilistic Choice: An Introduction to the Issues,” Economic Forum, vol. 10, Summer.

LEGISLATIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY TESTIMONY:

Invited testimony in hearings on FDA preemption of state tort liability lawsuits before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, May 14, 2008.

Invited testimony in hearings on drug safety and the FDA, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Agriculture and FDA, Feb. 27, 2008.

Testimony in public hearings before the FDA’s Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee on whether to permit the drug Tysabri to re-enter the market, March 7, 2006.

Invited testimony in hearings on “Medicaid Prescription Drugs: Examining Options for Payment Reform, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Health, June 22, 2005.

Invited testimony in hearings on “The Roles of FDA and Pharmaceutical Companies in Ensuring the Safety of Approved Drugs, Like Vioxx,” House Government Reform Committee, May 5, 2005.

Invited testimony in hearings on “International Drug Prices,” before the United States Senate Committee on Finance, Joint Committee on International Trade and Health, April 27 2004.

Invited testimony before the Department of Health and Human Services Task Force in Drug Importation, held at the Food and Drug Administration on April 27 2004.

Invited testimony on pharmaceutical price controls before the House Committee on Industrial Relations for the State of Georgia, Feb. 11, 2004.

Invited testimony on direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs in hearings before the Federal Trade Commission, Sept. 10, 2003.

Invited testimony on the role of pharmaceutical benefit managers in hearings before the Federal Trade Commission, June 26, 2003.

[ page 8 ] Invited testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, in public hearings on “the National Immunization Program: Is It Prepared for the Public Health Challenges of the 21st Century?,” Tuesday, Nov. 27, 2001.

Invited testimony in hearings on “Direct-to-consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs,” Before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs, Tuesday, July 24, 2001.

Invited testimony in hearing on “Seniors’ Access to Prescription Drug Benefits,” before the Subcommittee on Health, Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives, February 15, 2000.

Expert testimony on alcoholic beverage advertising, before the Cleveland City Council, July 1997.

Expert testimony on alcoholic beverage advertising, before the New Zealand Advertising Standards Authority, April 1998.

Testimony on alcoholic beverage advertising, before the Baltimore City Council, December 9, 1993.

Invited testimony on the regulation of marketing and advertising; testimony and prepared statement printed in "Oversight of FTC's Shared Responsibilities," Hearing before the Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous Materials of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, 102nd Congress, 1st Session, November 21, 1991. GPO: Serial No. 102-92, p. 165-178.

GOVERNMENT REPORTS, PRIVATE REPORTS, AND COMMENTS TO GOVERNMENT AGENCIES:

Calfee, John E. (2002) “Comments to the Food and Drug Administration on First Amendment Issues (Docket No. 02N-0209), Sept. 13.

Calfee, John E. (2000) “Comments to the World Health Organization on the Proposed Framework Convention on Tobacco Control,” American Enterprise Institute, March 2000.

Calfee, John E. (1996) “The Economics of Georgine: Finding Virtue in a Class Action Settlement,” American Enterprise Institute, September 1996.

Calfee, John E. (1996) “An Economic Analysis of Relocating [the FDA’s] CDRH and Implementing Third-Party Review of Medical Devices,” American Enterprise Institute, March 1996.

[ page 9 ] Calfee, John E. (1995) “Comments to the Food and Drug Administration on ‘Pharmaceutical Marketing and Information Exchange in Managed Care Environ- ments’,” (Docket 95N-0228), December 1995.

Calfee, John E. (1995) “Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs: What Are the Risks?” presented at a Food and Drug Administration public hearing on Direct-to-Consumer Promotion of Pharmaceuticals, October 18, 1995.

Calfee, John E. (1992) “Comments to the Food and Drug Administration on 21 CFR Part 101, et al., ‘Proposed Regulations on Food Labeling’,” February 1992.

John E. Calfee and Janis K. Pappalardo (1989) How Should Health Claims for Foods Be Regulated? An Economic Perspective, Bureau of Economics, Federal Trade Commis- sion, September 1989.

Calfee, John E. (1985) "Cigarette Advertising, Health Information and Regulation Before 1970," Bureau of Economics, Federal Trade Commission, Working Paper #134 (Dec- ember).

BOOK CHAPTERS:

Calfee, John E. (2002) “Some Comments Inspired by Viscusi’s ‘Tobacco Regulation by Litigation’,” in W. Kip Viscusi, ed., Regulation through Litigation, Brookings Institution, p. 52-66.

John E. Calfee (2000) “Insights from Consumer Research on the Effects of Deceptive Advertising Regulation,” in Paul N. Bloom and Gregory T. Gundlach, editors, The Handbook of Marketing and Society, Sage Publications, p. 421-435.

Calfee, John E. (1996) "The Leverage Principle in FDA Regulation of Information" in Robert Helms, ed., Competitive Strategies in the Pharmaceutical Industry, American Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C., p. 306-321.

Calfee, John E. (1992) "Free Speech, FDA Regulation, and Market Effects on the Phar- maceutical Industry," in Richard Kaplar, ed., Bad Prescription for the First Amend- ment: FDA Censorship of Drug Advertising and Promotion, Media Institute, Wash- ington, D.C., p. 63-86.

John E. Calfee (1990) "Comments on

[ page 10 ] Calfee, John E., and Cliff Winston (1988) "Economic Aspects of Liability Rules and Liability Insurance," in Litan and Winston, editors, Liability: Perspectives and Policy, Washington, D. C.: Brookings Institution, pp. 16-41.

Gary Ford, John Prather Brown and John E. Calfee (1987) "The Costs and Benefits to Smokers of Reduced Flammability Cigarettes," in Economic Sector Data for Modeling the Impact of Less Ignition-Prone Cigarettes, GPO: Technical Study Group for the Cigarette Safety Act of 1984, pp. 117-148. [Report prepared for the Consumer Product Safety Commission.]

John E. Calfee and Gary Ford (1985) "The FTC's Product Defects Program and Consumer Perception of Product Quality", in Jacoby and Olson, ed's, Perceived Quality: How Consumers View Stores and Merchandise. Lexington Books.

William Garrison and John E. Calfee (1982) "Non-Incremental Automobile-Highway Sys- tem Changes: Small Vehicle Systems for Personal Transportation," Technical Report, Institute for Transportation Studies, U. of California, Berkeley.

John E. Calfee, William Garrison and Janet Hopson (1981) "Electric Vehicle Potential in Hawaii, 1980-2005," chapter 12 of Volume II of the Hawaii Integrated Energy Assess- ment, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA.

PUBLISHED CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS:

Janis K. Pappalardo and John E. Calfee (1991) "What's Good in Theory is Good in Practice: Using an Expected Value Rule to Regulate Health Claims," in Robert N. Mayer, ed., Enhancing Consumer Choice: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Research in the Consumer Interest, p. 79-95.

Gary Ford and John E. Calfee (1984) "Consumer Psychology Research Needs at the FTC," proceedings of the 1983 annual meetings of the Consumer Psychology section of the American Psychological Association.

[ page 11 ] OP-EDS AND OPINION ARTICLES:

Calfee, John E. (2009) “Following Europe’s Lead on Biotech Drugs,” theamerican.com, Nov. 24. Available at http://blog.american.com/?p=7537.

Calfee, John E. (2009) “Limiting Drug Prices Means Limiting Future Cures,” Los Angeles Times, October 10, 2009. Available at: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-calfee10-2009oct10,0,11498 77.story. [reprinted in Modesto Bee, Oct. 16.]

Calfee, John E. (2009) “The Dangers of Fannie Mae Health Care,” Wall Street Journal, June 26, 2009, p. 15. [Reprinted in part in Reader’s Digest, September, p. 142-143. Available at http://www.rd.com/your-america-inspiring-people-and-stories/wall-street-journal-on-h ealth-care-reform/article159088.html]

Calfee, John E. (2009) “I Guess They’re Just Not Dangerous Enough, . . .” American.com blog. Available at http://blog.american.com/?p=1444. [On “e-cigarettes.”]

Calfee, John E. (2009) “Decoding the Use of Gene Patents,” TheAmerican.com, May 15, 2009 (available at http://www.american.com/archive/2009/may-2009/decoding-the-use-of-gene-patents).

Calfee, John E. (2009) “Let Us Now Praise Good Business Journalism,” American.com blog. Available at http://blog.american.com/?p=135.

Calfee, John E. (2009) “Tough Challenges at the FDA,” TheAmerican.com, January 15, 2009 (available at http://www.american.com/archive/2009/tough-challenges-at-the- fda).

Calfee, John E. (2008) “Seeding Science and Sales,” TheAmerican.com, Monday, August 25, 2008 (available at http://www.american.com/archive/2008/august-08-08/seeding- sales-and-science).

Calfee, John E., and Paul H. Rubin (2008) “Drugs Kennedy Needs,” New York Sun, June 4, 2008.

Barfield, Claude, and John E. Calfee (2008) “Patents Q&A,” The American, Jan.-Feb., p. 70-74.

Barfield, Claude, and John E. Calfee (2007) “Congress’s Patent Mistakes,” Wall Street Journal, October 29, 2007, p. A18.

[ page 12 ] Calfee, John E. (2007) “Patent Challenges Have Wide Impact On Big Pharma: Interview with John E. Calfee,” Investor’s Business Daily, Aug. 31, 2007.

Calfee, John E. (2007) “FDA Steps Backward,” New York Sun, April 24, 2007. [on FDA advisory committee vote not to approve a drug because it was not superior to existing drugs]

Calfee, John E. (2007) “Lessons of the Heart,” TheAmerican.com, Friday, April 2, 2007.

Calfee, John E. (2007) “Pushing Too Far,” New York Sun, March 28, 2007. [on FDA rules for advisory committee conflicts of interest]

Calfee, John E. (2007) “The Truth about the Drug Ads,” The American, Friday, Feb. 2.

Calfee, John E. (2007) “The Real Dangers of Medicare,” New York Sun, January 12, 2007. [on proposals to repeal the non-negotiation clause in the Medicare Part D drug benefit]

Calfee, John E. (2006) “FDA Advisory Committees and Conflicts of Interest: Understanding the Coinage of the Realm,” Medical Progress Today (www.medicalprogresstoday.com).

Calfee, John E. (2006) “Drug Dilemma,” a review of Richard Epstein’s Overdose: How Excessive Government Regulation Stifles Pharmaceutical Innovation, in the New York Post, October 8, 2006.

Calfee, John E. (2006) “Patient Power: The FDA Doesn’t Have to Decide Everything,” The Weekly Standard, May 8, 2006, v. 11, n. 32, p. 22.

Calfee, John E. (2006) “Who’s Aided by Impasse over Vote for FDA Chief?.” Philadelphia Inquirer, April 19, 2006.

Calfee, John E. (2006) “Rein in the Monster,” New York Sun, April 12, 2006.

Calfee, John E. (2006) “Striking a Balance,” New York Sun, January 30, 2006.

Calfee, John E. (2006) “Creating a Thriving Biodefense Marketplace,” Defense News, January 23, 2006.

Calfee, John E. (2005) “First, Do No Harm,” New York Sun, October 18, 2005.

Calfee, John E. (2005) “What the Texas Jury Did to Patients.” TechCentralStation, September 8, 2005.

[ page 13 ] Calfee, John E. (2005) “Junk Science Reigns,” New York Sun, August 22, 2005.

Calfee, John E. (2005) “To Really Stop Smoking,” TechCentralStation, July 6, 2005.

Calfee, John E. (2005) “Why We Should Preserve the American Pharmaceutical Research and Development System,” in “Addressing the Costs and Benefits of Prescription Drugs,” National Association of Attorneys General.

Calfee, John E. (2005) “On My Mind: Where There’s Smoke,” Forbes, April 18, 2005.

Calfee, John E. (2005) “Is the FDA Broken?”, TechCentralStation, March 30, 2005.

“The Cost of Medicine,” California Connected (KQED-PBS-NPR, San Francisco), August 26, 2004, email debate between Jack Calfee and Merrill Goozner [available at californiaconnected.org/salons/040826-medicine.html].

Calfee, John E. (2003) “The High Price of Cheap Drugs: The House is tempted by a terrible idea,” The Weekly Standard, July 21, 2003, Vol. 8, Issue 43, p. 20-21.

Calfee, John E. (2003) “An I.P. Regime Change,” Tech Central Station, Jan. 24, 2003; Washington Times, Jan. 28, 2003, “Patently Wrong.”

Calfee, John E. (2002) “Why Drugs from Canada Won’t Cut Prices,” Consumer Research, November, p. 10-12.

Calfee, John E. (2002) “Direct-to-Consumer Drug Ads Benefit Patients,” Pfizer Forum advertorial, published in various outlets.

Calfee, John E. (2002) “Re-importing drugs a pipe dream,” Providence Journal, Sep. 22, 2002. [Also printed in St. Paul Pioneer-Press, Sep. 22; Watertown (NY) Daily Times, Sep. 24; and Newark Star-Ledger, Sep. 24).

Calfee, John E. (2002) “Drug Reimportation from Canada: Not So Fast,” posted August 7, 2002 on BCBSHealthIssues.com (Blue Cross Blue Shield).

Calfee, John E. (2002) “Contra: Food Safety and Market Forces” [on genetically modified food labeling], CESifo Forum, Munich, Germany, Spring 2002, p. 42-43.

Calfee, John E. (2002) Los Angeles Daily News, March 18, “Champions of Ignorance;” also Charlotte Observer, Sunday, Mar. 17, 2002, “Dug Ads Should Be Left Alone;” Roanoke Sunday Times, March 24, “Advertising works as preventative tool,” Lewiston (Me) Sunday Sun Journal, March 24, “Congress should keep its hands off direct-to- consumer ads for drugs.”

[ page 14 ] Calfee, John E. (2001) “Pharmaceutical Patents and Public Safety,” Consumer Research magazine, v. 84, no. 11, November 2001, p. 14-17.

Calfee, John E. (2001) “What Role Will Germany Have In the Revolution in Medicine? Remarks at the Residence of the American Ambassador to Germany, Berlin, Germany, October 11, 2001.

Calfee, John E. (2001) “What the FDA Survey Showed About Direct-to-consumer Prescription Drug Advertising,” Economic Realities in Health Care Policy, v. 2, n. 1, p. 10-15.

Calfee, John E. (2001) “Drug Ads Close the Information Gap,” AARP Bulletin, Sept. 2001, p. 29.

Calfee, John E. (2001) “Good Spillovers from Rx Advertising,” Consumer Research magazine, v. 84, no. 8, August 2001, p. 18-19, excerpted from July 24, 2001 Senate Testimony.

Calfee, John E. (2001) “The effects of pharmaceutical price controls,” posted c. July 18, 2001 on Docrates.com, a website for physicians.

Calfee, John E. (2001) “It Is Time for Canada to Rethink its Ban on Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs,” Fraser Forum, February 2001, p. 4-5.

Calfee, John E. (2000) “Drugs, Drug Prices and Your Health,” Consumer Research magazine, v. 83, no. 5, May 2000, p. 10-15, excerpted from Prices, Markets, and the Pharmaceutical Revolution. Reprinted in Charles F. Levinthal, ed. (2002) Point/Counterpoint: Opposing Perspectives in Drugs, Behavior, and Modern Society (Allyn and Bacon), p. 187-193.

Calfee, John E., “Be Wary of Drug-price Controls,” Sacramento Bee, July 6, 2000; Raleigh News and Observer, July 11, 2000; Akron Beacon Journal, July 12, 2000; Dubuque (IA) Telegraph-Herald, July 6, 2000.

Calfee, John E. (2000) “The Unintended Consequences of Price Controls,” Pfizer Forum advertorial, printed in Economist, March 18, 2000; Financial Times, March 23, 2000; National Review; Foreign Affairs, July-August 2000; Washington Post, and others.

“Price Controls are a Prescription for Disaster,” Wall Street Journal, July 22, 1999.

“A Legal Nightmare for Asbestos’ Real Victims,” Los Angeles Times, August 2, 1998; also printed in Albany Times-Union, August 7, 1998, Baltimore Sun, August 13, 1998, Bangor News, and Spokane Spokesman-Review.

[ page 15 ] “The Litigation Logjam We Can Clear,” Legal Times, July 20, 1998, p. 23; also printed in New Jersey Law Journal and other legal newspapers.

“Why the War on Smoking Will Fail,” Weekly Standard, July 20, 1998, p. 23-26; abridged version published in El Nacional, Caracas, , August 31, 1998, under the title, “El fracaso de la guerra contra el cigarrillo;” and in El Mercurio, Santiago, , September 23, 1998.

“How Advertising Informs to Our Benefit,” Consumer Research magazine, v. 81, no. 4, April 1998, p. 13-18, excerpted from Fear of Persuasion.

“Efficiency Begets Fairness: the Supreme Court Takes On ‘Class Action Settlements,’” Legal Times, February 10, 1997, p. S40; also printed in Connecticut Law Tribune, Feburary 17, 1997, p. 35.

“Solving the Asbestos Litigation Morass,” Washington Times, November 25, 1996.

“Discussion on the Economics of the Georgine Settlement: Finding Virtue in an Asbestos Class Settlement,” Legal Intelligencer, October 16, 1996, p. 11-12.

“FDA: The Illusions Fade: letter to the editor,” Wall Street Journal, October 1, 1996, p. A23.

“Smoking Alternatives: letter to the editor,” Advertising Age, September 16, 1996, p. 24.

"Worried About Your Health? FDA Isn't," Wall Street Journal, September 12, 1994, p. A16

"How Clinton Lost vs. Harry & Louise," Advertising Age, August 29, 1994, p. 20.

"FTC's Hidden Weight-Loss Ad Agenda," Advertising Age, Oct. 25, 1993, p. 29.

"Proponents of Mandated Alcohol Ad Warnings Ignore Constitutional Value of Com- mercial Speech," 3/12 Legal Opinion Letter, Washington Legal Foundation, May 14, 1993.

“Here We Go Again; Ads Under Fire,” Advertising Age, March 15, 1993, p. 24.

"BATF Censorship is Hazardous to Health of Alcohol Market and Free Speech," 2/21 Legal Opinion Letter, Washington Legal Foundation, Sept. 11, 1992.

[ page 16 ] "Let Market Forces, Not the FDA, Regulate Food and Drugs," Roll Call Newspaper, Washington, D.C., May 21, 1992, p. 18.

"FDA's Ugly Package," Advertising Age, March 16, 1992, p. 25.

"FDA vs the First Amendment," Wall Street Journal, February 13, 1992, p. A18.

"

"FDA Underestimates Food Shoppers," Wall Street Journal, May 29, 1991, p. A10.

"When Cigarette Ads Harmed the Industry's Health," Wall Street Journal, July 6, 1988, p. 24.

REPRINTED ARTICLES, ETC.:

Calfee, John E. (2009) “The Dangers of Fannie Mae Health Care,” Wall Street Journal, June 26, 2009, p. 15. Partially reprinted in Readers Digest, September 2009.

“Drugs, Drug Prices and Your Health,” Consumer Research magazine, v. 83, no. 5, May 2000, p. 10-15, excerpted from Prices, Markets, and the Pharmaceutical Revolution. To be reprinted in Charles F. Levinthal, ed. (2002) Point/Counterpoint: Opposing Perspectives in Drugs, Behavior, and Modern Society (Allyn and Bacon).

“Why the War on Smoking Will Fail,” Weekly Standard, July 20, 1998, p. 23-26: Abridged version published in El Nacional, Caracas, Venezuela, August 31, 1998, under the title, “El fracaso de la guerra contra el cigarrillo;” in El Mercurio, Santiago, Chile, September 23, 1998; and El Economista, Mexico City, Mexico, September 24, 1998. Also reprinted in Teen Smoking and Current Issues by Greenhaven Press.

“How Advertising Informs to Our Benefit,” Consumer Research magazine, v. 81, no. 4, April 1998, p. 13-18 (excerpted from Fear of Persuasion): reprinted in Span, English-language magazine distributed in by the United States Information Agency reprinted in Alison Alexander and Jarice Hanson, ed. (1998) Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Issues in Mass Media and Society, McGraw- Hill reprinted (abridged) in Byron L. Stay, ed., Mass Media, Greenhaven Press, 1999 reprinted in Sonia Maasik and Jack Solomon, Signs of Life, 4th ed., Bedford/St. Martin’s, November 2002.

[ page 17 ] reprinted in Michael Petracca and Madeleine Sorapure, Common Culture: Reading and Writing about American Popular Culture, Prentice Hall, July 2003; and Feb. 2009.

John E. Calfee (1986) "The Ghost of Cigarette Advertising Past," Regulation, vol. 10, no. 2, November-December, pp. 35-45; reprinted in Regulation, vol. 20, no. 3, Summer 1997, p. 41-45.

John E. Calfee and Carl Scheraga (1994) "The Influence of Advertising on Alcohol Consumption: Review of the Evidence and An Econometric Analysis of Four Europ- ean Nations" International Journal of Advertising, reprinted in J.C. Luik and M.J. Waterson (1996) Advertising and Markets: A Collection of Seminal Papers, U.K.: NTC Publications, p. 203-228.

Calfee and Ringold (1994) "The Seventy Percent Majority: Enduring Consumer Beliefs About Advertising," Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, reprinted in 18/1 Advertising Law Anthology, 1995, ed. Allison P. Zabriskie, Law Book Publishers, p. 515-528.

Rubin and Calfee (1992) "Consequences of Damage Awards for Hedonic and Other Non- pecuniary Losses," Journal of Forensic Economics, reprinted in John E. Ward, ed., A Hedonics Primer for Economists and Attorneys, Lawyers and Judges Publishing Co., p. 169-181.

Calfee (1991) "FDA Underestimates Food Shoppers," Wall Street Journal, May 29, 1991, reprinted in Consumer Research magazine, August 1991, pp. 28-30.

Calfee and Craswell (1984) "Some Effects of Uncertainty on Compliance with Legal - dards," Virginia Law Review: Reprinted in Tom D. Campbell (Australian National Univ.), ed., The International Library of Essays in Law and Legal Theory, Dartmouth Publishing Co. Ltd, England, 1991. Reprinted in Jules Coleman & Jeffrey Lange, eds., Law and Economics, vol 1. New York; New York University Press, 1992. Reprinted in abridged form in Saul Levmore, ed., Foundations of Tort Law, Oxford U. Pr., 1993.

Butters, Calfee and Ippolito (1981) "Reply to Steven Kelman," Regulation, reprinted in Glickman, Theodore S., and Michael Gough, eds (1990) Readings in Risk, Wash- ington, D.C.: Resources for the Future, p. 136-137; Douglas Birsch and John H. Fielder, ed. (1994) The Ford Pinto case; a Study in Applied Ethics, Business, and Technology, State University of New York Press; Robert Stavins, ed., Economics of the Environment, 4th ed., 2000, New York: W.W. Norton & Co; and Richard Zerbe,

[ page 18 ] ed. (2008) Benefit-Cost Analysis, part of The International Library of Critical Writings in Economics, edited by Mark Blaug. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, U.K.

AWARDS:

Best article published in Journal of Public Policy and Marketing during 1991-1993: Calfee and Pappalardo (1991) “Public Policy Issues in Health Claims for Foods.”

Nominated for best article published in Journal of Public Policy and Marketing during 1990-1992: Debra Jones Ringold and John E. Calfee (1989) “The Informational Content of Cigarette Advertising: 1926-86.”

Nominated for best article published in Journal of Public Policy and Marketing during 1995-1997 and again for 1996-1998: Carl Scheraga and John E. Calfee (1996) “The Industry Effects of Information and Regulation In the Cigarette Market: 1950-1965.”

LITIGATION DEPOSITIONS AND TESTIMONY:

Calfee, John E., Ernst R. Berndt, Robert W. Hahn, Tomas J. Philipson, Paul H. Rubin, and W. Kip Viscusi (2008) “Supreme Court Amicus Brief Regarding Wyeth v. Levine.” Available at http://www.reg-markets.org/publications/abstract.php?pid=1277. Accessed June 4, 2008.

Calfee, John E., Daniel B. Klein, Sam Peltzman, Alex Tabarrok, and Benjamin Zycher (2007) “Regulating Access to Developmental Drugs for Terminally Ill Patients: Abigail Alliance v FDA,” Appeals Court Amicus Brief, Jan 2007. Available at http://www.aei.brookings.org/publications/abstract.php?pid=1148. Accessed April 12, 2007.

Expert statement, “An Economic Evaluation of Proposed Methods for Assessing the Market Value of Programming on Canadian Distant Signals,” submitted to the Copyright Royalty Tribunal, on behalf of Canadian Broadcasting Corp., in connection with the 1998-1999 Cable Copyright Royalty Distribution Proceeding, July 2003.

Expert witness on the effects of advertising for ephedra weight-loss products manufactured by the Cytodyne Corp., in Jason A. Park vs Cytodyne , Inc., Superior Court of the state of California for the County of San Diego, Central Division, case no. 768364, April 15-17, 2003.

Expert witness on alcoholic beverage advertising, in Federation of Advertising Industry v. City of Chicago (Case No. 97 C 7619, United States District Court for the Northern

[ page 19 ] District of Illinois, Eastern Division). Deposed June 10, 1998; complaint dismissed before trial; matter still under appeal.

Expert witness on consumer survey design, consumer attitudes towards price advertising, and the regulation of price advertising, represented by Mayer, Brown and Platt: B. Sanfield v. Finlay Fine Jewelers, Case No. 93 C 20149, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Division. Northern District of Illinois, January 1998.

Expert statement, “An Economic Evaluation of the Bortz Study in Assessing the Market Value of Programming on Canadian Distant Signals,” submitted to the Copyright Royalty Tribunal, on behalf of Canadian Broadcasting Corp., in connection with the 1991-1992 Cable Copyright Royalty Distribution Proceeding, February 1996.

Expert statement on the economic aspects of “Backdoor Rulemaking” at the Federal Trade Commission, on behalf of the Jenny Craig Corp., in connection with FTC litigation in the weight-loss industry, July 1994.

Designated as an expert witness for Exxon on the economic effects of punitive damages, in the Exxon Valdez litigation; deposed December 1993, but did not testify.

Expert testimony on price advertising, for May Department Stores, Colorado v. the May Department Stores d/b/a May D&F (1990), District Court, City and County of Denver, Case No. 89 CV 9274.

REFEREEING ACTIVITIES: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. (consumer behavior textbook); Advances in Consumer Research; Advances in Marketing and Public Policy; American Marketing Association Proceedings; American Marketing Association dissertation com- petition; Economic Inquiry; Health Affairs; Institute of Medicine; International Journal of Pharmaceutical Medicine; International Review of Law and Economics; Journal of Advertising; Journal of Business Ethics; Journal of Business Research; Journal of Consumer Research; Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law; Journal of Industrial Economics; Journal of Public Policy and Marketing (editorial review board, 1992-1999); Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization; Managerial and Decision Economics; Nature Reviews Drug Discovery; Personalized Medicine; Pharmacoeconomics; Quarterly Review of Economics and Business; Regulation; Smith Richardson Foundation.

[ page 20 ] [ page 21 ]

December 2009

VITA: BRIAN T. RATCHFORD

3.707 SOM Building (972) 883-5975 (Office) The University of Texas at Dallas (972) 473-9384 (Home) 800 West Campbell Rd., SM 32 Richardson, TX 75080-3021

PERSONAL

Citizenship: U.S. Citizen Marital Status: Married

EDUCATION

Ph.D. (Business Administration), University of Rochester, June 1972 M.B.A. (Business Administration), University of Rochester, June 1966 A.B. (English), Canisius College, June 1964

Program Areas of Specialization:

Economics (Major) Marketing and Quantitative Methods (Minors) Thesis title: "Analyzing the Welfare Effect of a Subsidy: The Case of General Aviation in the United States"

WORK EXPERIENCE: 2006 - The University of Texas at Dallas, Davidson Chair. Teaching Ph.D. seminars in marketing models and economics of information, MBA courses in channels and marketing engineering. Consultant to Anasight.

1999-2006 University of Maryland, Pepsico Chair in Consumer Research. Teaching courses in marketing research, Ph.D. seminars in marketing models, and economics of information. Consultant to Foote, Cone and Belding; Pepsico, GTS Consulting, Inforte Consulting.

1971-1999 State University of New York at Buffalo. Teaching courses in marketing research, marketing management, advertising management, marketing models, statistics, economics. Associate Professor with Tenure June 1975, Full Professor September 1981. Alumni Professor, 1990. Consultant to GTS Consulting; Electric Power Research Institute; Foote, Cone and Belding; Independent Health; Buffalo Sabres Hockey Club; Premier Liquor Corp. 1977 - 1978 Faculty Fellow, European Institute for Advanced Studies in Management, Brussels.

1969 - 1971 Boston College, Instructor in Marketing, Teaching graduate courses in quantitative techniques, marketing and business forecasting; undergraduate courses in market research.

1966 - 1969 University of Rochester, Teaching Assistant.

1967 B. F. Goodrich Chemical Company, Cleveland, Ohio, Market Research Analyst.

RESEARCH AND PUBLICATIONS

Published in Refereed Journals

1. Brian T. Ratchford, "A Model for Estimating the Demand for General Aviation," Transportation Research, Vol. 8, No. 3 (1974), pp. 193-202.

2. Brian T. Ratchford, "The New Economic Theory of Consumer Behavior: An Interpretive Essay," Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 2, No. 2 (1975), pp. 65-75.

3. Brian T. Ratchford and Gary T. Ford, "A Study of Prices and Market Shares in the Computer Mainframe Industry," Journal of Business, Vol. 49, No. 2 (1976), pp. 194-218.

4. Alan Andreasen and Brian T. Ratchford, "Factors Affecting Consumers' Use of Information Sources," Journal of Business Research, Vol. 4, No. 3 (1976), pp. 197-212, reprinted in Terry T. Ball, et al., eds., Marketing Readings: An Enrichment of Concepts (Prospect Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press, 1979), pp. 430-443.

5. Robert Hagerman and Brian T. Ratchford, "Some Determinants of Allowed Rates of Return to Utilities," Bell Journal of Economics, Vol. 9, No. 1 (1978), pp. 46-55.

6. Vijay Mahajan, Arun Jain, and Brian T. Ratchford, "Use of Binary Attributes in Multiplicative Competitive Interaction Choice Models," Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 6, No. 4 (December 1978), pp. 210-215.

7. Brian T. Ratchford and Gary T. Ford, "A Study of Prices and Market Shares in the Computer Mainframe Industry: Reply," Journal of Business, Vol. 52, No. 1 (1979), pp. 125-134.

2 8. Brian T. Ratchford, "Operationalizing Economic Models of Demand for Product Characteristics," Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 6, No. 2 (1979), pp. 76-84.

9. Brian T. Ratchford, "The Value of Information for Selected Appliances," Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 17, No. 1 (1980), pp. 14-25.

10. Manoj K. Agarwal and Brian T. Ratchford, "Estimating Demand Functions for Product Characteristics: The Case of Automobiles," Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 8, No. 4 (December 1980), pp. 249-262.

11. Brian T. Ratchford, "Cost Benefit Models for Explaining Consumer Choice and Information Seeking Behavior," Management Science, Vol. 28, No. 2 (February 1982), pp. 197-212.

12. Brian T. Ratchford and Manoj K. Agarwal, "Estimating Demand Functions for Product Characteristics: Reply," Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 10, No. 3 (September 1982), pp. 221-224.

13. Brian T. Ratchford, "The Individual Welfare Function: A Comment," Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 6, No. 4 (December 1985), pp. 365-374.

14. Brian T. Ratchford and James R. Brown, "A Study of Productivity Changes in Food Retailing," Marketing Science, Vol. 4, No. 4 (Fall 1985), pp. 292-311.

15. Brian T. Ratchford, "New Insights About the FCB Grid," Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 27 (August-September 1987), pp. 24-38.

16. George H. Haines, Jr. and Brian T. Ratchford, "A Theory of How Intransitive Consumers Make Decisions," Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 8, No. 3 (September 1987), pp. 273-298.

17. Wagner A. Kamakura, Brian T. Ratchford and Jagdish Agrawal, "Measuring Market Efficiency and Welfare Loss," Journal of Consumer Research, (December 1988), pp. 289-302.

18. Brian T. Ratchford and Glenn T. Stoops, "A Model and Measurement Approach for Studying Retail Productivity," Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64 (Fall 1988), pp. 241-263. (Won Best Article Award for 1988.)

19. Brian T. Ratchford, "Commentary: Marketing Applications of the Economics of Product Variety," Marketing Science, Vol. 9, No. 3 (Summer 1990), pp. 207- 211. Reprinted in Recherche et Applications en Marketing, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1991.

3 20. Brian T. Ratchford and Pola Gupta, "On the Interpretation of the Price-Quality Relationship," Journal of Consumer Policy, Vol. 13 (1990), 389-411.

21. Narasimhan Srinivasan and Brian T. Ratchford, "An Empirical Test of A Model of External Search for Automobiles," Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 18 (September 1991), 233-242.

22. Ron Smith and Brian T. Ratchford, "On Identifying and Measuring the Factors Contributing to Brand Equity," Canadian Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 10 (1991), 3-13.

23. Brian T. Ratchford and Glenn T. Stoops, "An Econometric Model of a Retail Firm," Managerial and Decision Economics, Vol. 13 (1991), 223-231.

24. Leigh McAlister, Rajendra Srivastava, Joel Horwitz, Morgan Jones, Wagner Kamakura, Jack Kulchitsky, Brian Ratchford, Gary Russel, Freena Sultan, Tetsuo Yai, Doyle Weiss, Russ Winer, "Incorporating Choice Dynamics in Models of Consumer Behavior," Marketing Letters, Vol. 2 (1991), 241-252.

25. Pola Gupta and Brian T. Ratchford, "Estimating the Efficiency of Consumer Choices of New Automobiles," Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 13 (1992), 375-397.

26. Brian T. Ratchford and Pola Gupta, "On Estimating Market Efficiency," Journal of Consumer Policy, Vol. 15 (1992), 275-293.

27. Brian T. Ratchford and Narasimhan Srinivasan, "An Empirical Investigation of Returns to Search," Marketing Science, Vol. 12 (Winter 1993), 73-87.

28. Ida E. Berger, Brian T. Ratchford and George H. Haines, Jr., "Product Knowledge as a Moderator of the Relationship between Attitudes and Purchase Intentions for a Durable Product," Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 15 (1994), 301-314.

29. Brian T. Ratchford, Jagdish Agrawal, Pamela Grimm, Narasimhan Srinivasan, "Toward Understanding the Measurement of Market Efficiency," Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 15(1996), 167-184. (Won Outstanding Article in Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 1995-1997 award.)

30. Wagner A. Kamakura, Tomasz Lenartowicz and Brian T. Ratchford, "Productivity Assessment of Multiple Retail Outlets," Journal of Retailing, 72 (Fall 1996), 333-356. (Won William R. Davidson Prize for best article in 1996.)

4 31. K. Sridhar Moorthy, Brian T. Ratchford and Debabrata Talukdar, "Consumer Information Search Revisited: Theory and Empirical Analysis," Journal of Consumer Research, 23 (March 1997), 263-277.

32. Sanjay Putrevu and Brian T. Ratchford, “A Model of Search Behavior with an Application to Grocery Shopping,” Journal of Retailing, 73 (Winter 1997), 463- 496. (Third place in William R. Davidson competition for best article.)

33. Brian T. Ratchford, "Introduction to the Special Section on Economic Perspectives," Journal of Retailing, 74 (Spring 1998), 11-14.

34. Brian T. Ratchford, "The Economics of Consumer Knowledge," Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (March 2001), 397-411.

35. Brian T. Ratchford, Debabrata Talukdar and Myung Soo Lee, “A Model of Consumer Choice of the Internet as an Information Source,” International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 5 (Spring 2001), 7-22.

36. Xing Pan, Brian T. Ratchford and Venkatesh Shankar, “Can Price Dispersion in Online Markets be Explained by Differences in e-Tailer Service Quality?” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30 (Fall 2002), 433-445.

37. Brian T. Ratchford, Myung Soo Lee and Debarbrata Talukdar, “The Impact of the Internet on Information Search for Automobiles,” Journal of Marketing Research, 40 (May 2003), pp. 193-209.

38. Brian T. Ratchford, "Has the Labor Productivity of Retail Food Stores Really Declined?” Journal of Retailing, 79 (2003), 171-182.

39 . Brian T. Ratchford, Xing Pan and Venkatesh Shankar, “On the Efficiency of Internet Markets for Consumer Goods,” Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 22 (Spring 2003), 4-16.

40. Amit Bhatnagar and Brian T. Ratchford, “A Model of Retail Format Competition for Non-durable Goods,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21 (March 2004), 39-59.

41. Xing Pan, Brian T. Ratchford and Venkatesh Shankar,” “Price Dispersion on the Internet: A Review and Directions for Future Research,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18 (September 2004), 116-135.

42. Suresh Divakar, Brian T. Ratchford and Venkatesh Shankar, “Chan4Cast: A Multi-Channel Multi-Region Sales Forecasting Model and Decision Support System for Consumer Packaged Goods at Pepsico,” Marketing Science, 24 (Summer 2005), 334-350.

5

43. D. Sudharshan, Ben Liu and Brian T. Ratchford, "Optimal Response to a Next Generation New Product Introduction: To Imitate or to Leapfrog?" Managerial and Decision Economics, 27 (January 2006), 41-62.

44. Brian T. Ratchford, Debabrata Talukdar and Myung Soo Lee, “The Impact of the Internet on Consumers’ Use of Information Sources for Automobiles,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (June 2007), 111-119.

45. Lan Luo, P.K. Kannan and Brian T. Ratchford, “New Product Development under Channel Acceptance,” Marketing Science, 26 (March/April 2007), 149- 163 (Winner of Little Award for best marketing paper in an INFORMS journal in 2007).

46. Lan Luo, P.K. Kannan and Brian T. Ratchford, “Incorporating Subjective Characteristics in Product Design and Evaluations,” Journal of Marketing Research, 45 (April 2008), 182-194 (Winner of Lehmann Award for best dissertation based article published in Journal of Marketing or Journal of Marketing Research in the previous two years; finalist for Paul Green Award for best applied article in Journal of Marketing Research in 2008).

47. Nevena T. Koukova, P. K. Kannan, and Brian T. Ratchford, “Marketing of Digital Products: Product Form Bundling,” Journal of Retailing, 84 (2008), 181- 194.

48. Brian T. Ratchford, “Commentaries and Rejoinder to "Does Quality Win? Network Effects Versus Quality in High-Tech Markets,” Journal of Marketing Research, 46 (April 2009), 150-151.

49. Brian T. Ratchford, “Online Pricing: Review and Directions for Research,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23 (February 2009), 82-90

50. Praveen Kopalle, Dipayan Biswas, Pradeep K. Chintagunta, Jia Fan, Koen Pauwels, Brian Ratchford, and Jim Sills, “Retailer Pricing and Competitive Effects,” Journal of Retailing, 85 (2009), 56-70.

51. Brian T. Ratchford , "Consumer Search Behavior and Its Effect on Markets", Foundations and Trends® in Marketing, Vol. 3: No 1(2009), pp 1-74. http:/dx.doi.org/10.1561/1700000012.

52. Robert J. Meyer, Joachim Vosgerau, Vishal Singh, Joel E. Urbany, Gal Zauberman, Michael I. Norton, Tony H. Cui, Brian T. Ratchford, Alessandro Acquisti, David R. Bell, Barbara E. Kahn, “Behavioral Research and Empirical Modeling of Marketing Channels: Implications for both Fields and a Call for Future Research,” Marketing Letters, forthcoming.

Published in Books

6

1. Robert Crow and Brian T. Ratchford, "An Econometric Approach to Forecasting the Market Potential of Electric Automobiles," in William D. Nordhaus, ed., International Studies of Energy Demand (Amsterdam: North Holland Press, 1977), pp. 45-64.

2. Arun Jain, Vijay Mahajan, and Brian T. Ratchford, "Implications of a Company Work Force's Perceptions on Work Force Mix and Macro Manpower Plans," in Donald T. Bryant and Richard I. Niehaus, eds., Manpower Planning and Organization (New York and London: Plenum Press, 1978), pp. 653-666.

3. Andre Boyer, Kristian S. Palda, and Brian T. Ratchford, "The Hedonic Approach to Price-Quality Relationships and its Potential Application in Marketing," in J.N. Sheth, ed., Research in Marketing, Vol. 7 (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1984), pp. 1-40.

4. Brian T. Ratchford, "Forecasting Success on Failure of Proposed New Technologies: A Case of Electric Automobiles," in John R. Callahan and George H. Haines, Jr., eds., Managing High Technology (Ottawa, Ontario: Research Centre for High Technology Management, Carleton University, 1986), pp. 105-126.

5. Brian T. Ratchford, "The Economics of Information: The Views of a Marketing Economist," in Scott. Maynes, ed., The Frontier of Research in the Consumer Interest (Columbia, MO: American Council on Consumer Interest, 1988), pp. 265-269.

6. Brian T. Ratchford, "Introduction to Part IV: Competitive Behavior," in Timothy M. Devinney, ed., Issues in Pricing: Theory and Research (Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company, 1988), pp. 193-196.

7. Banwari Mittal, Brian T. Ratchford and Paul Prabhaker, "Functional and Expressive Attributes as Determinants of Brand Attitude," in J.N. Sheth, ed., Research in Marketing, Vol. 10 (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1990), pp. 135- 156.

8. Brian T. Ratchford, Wagner A. Kamakura and Siva Balasubramanian, "Diffusion Models with Replacement and Multiple Purchases," in Vijay Mahajan, Eitan Muller and Yoram Wind, New Product Diffusion Models, (Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000), pp. 123-140.

9. Xing Pan, Venkatesh Shankar and Brian T. Ratchford, "Price Competition Between Pure Play vs. Bricks-and-Clicks e-Tailers: Analytical Model and Empirical Analysis," of Advances in Applied Microeconomics: The Economics of the Internet and E-Commerce, Vol. 11 (Oxford, UK, Elsevier Science Ltd., 2002), pp. 29-61.

7 10. Xing Pan, Venkatesh Shankar, and Brian Ratchford, " The Evolution of Price Dispersion in Internet Retail Markets" Advances in Applied Microeconomics: Organizing the New Industrial Economy, Vol. 12 (Oxford, UK, Elsevier Science Ltd., 2003), pp. 85-106.

11. Brian T. Ratchford, Myung-Soo Lee and Debabrata Talukdar, “Consumer Use of the Internet in Search for Automobiles: Literature Review, a Conceptual Framework, and an Empirical Investigation,” Review of Marketing Research, Vol. 2 (Armonk, N.Y., M.E. Sharpe, 2005).

12. Koukova, Nevena T., P. K. Kannan, and Brian T. Ratchford, “Bundling and Unbundling of Electronic Content,” in Electronic Commerce and the Digital Economy, Advances in Management Information Systems Series, Michael J. Shaw, Ed. (Armonk, N.Y., M.E. Sharpe, 2006).

13. Brian T. Ratchford, “Consumer Search and Pricing” Handbook on Research on Pricing, ed. Vithala Rao, (Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 2009), 91-107.

Books Edited

1. Arun K. Jain, Christian Pinson, and Brian T. Ratchford, eds., Marketing Research: Applications and Problems (John Wiley and Sons, England, 1982).

Refereed Papers Published in Conference Proceedings

1. Brian T. Ratchford and Alan Andreasen, "A Study of Consumer Perceptions of Decisions," in Scott Ward and Peter Wright, eds., Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 1 (Urbana: Association for Consumer Research, 1974), pp. 334-345.

2. Brian T. Ratchford, "A Simple Technique for Measuring Differences in Product Quality," in Thomas V. Greer, ed., 1973 Combined Proceedings (Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1974), pp. 356-359.

3. Michael Etgar and Brian T. Ratchford, "Marketing Management and Marketing Concept: Their Conflict in Non-Profit Organizations," in Ronald C. Curhan, ed., 1974 Combined Proceedings (Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1975), pp. 258-261.

4. Gary T. Ford and Brian T. Ratchford, "Public Policy, The Sherman Act, and the IBM Anti-Trust Case," in Edward M. Mazze, ed., 1975 Combined Proceedings (Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1976), pp. 593-596.

8 5. Brian T. Ratchford, "Banning Unsafe Products: A Framework for Policy Analysis," in Barnett Greenberg and Danny Bellinger, eds., 1977 Combined Proceedings (Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1977), pp. 362-365.

6. Brian T. Ratchford and Piet Van den Abeele, "Attitudes, Perceptions and the Marketing of Mass Transit," Proceedings, The Fifth International Research Conference in Marketing (Gordes, France, 1978), pp. 47-62.

7. Brian T. Ratchford and Manoj K. Agarwal, "The Value of Information on Automobile Characteristics," in Neil Beckwith, et al., eds., 1979 Educators' Conference Proceedings (Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1979), pp. 200-204.

8. Brian T. Ratchford and W. Fred Van Raaij, "The Relation Between Information Acquisition Strategy and Monetary Losses due to Incorrect Choices," in Richard P. Bagozzi, et al., eds., Marketing in the 80's: Challenges and Changes (Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1980), pp. 168-171.

9. Brian T. Ratchford, "The Flow of Capital Services and Productivity of Capital of Retail Food Stores," in R. Lusch, et.al., eds., 1985 Educators' Conference Proceedings (Chicago American Marketing Association, 1985), pp. 223-228.

10. Brian T. Ratchford and Pola Gupta, "On Measuring the Informational Efficiency of Consumer Markets," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 14 (Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 1987), pp. 309-313.

11. Brian T. Ratchford and Richard Vaughn, "On The Relationship Between Motives and Purchase Decisions: Some Empirical Approaches," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 16 (Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 1989), pp. 293-299.

Invited Papers Published in Conference Proceedings

1. Brian T. Ratchford, "An Attribute Approach to Measuring Differences in Product Quality," Proceedings, American Institute for Decision Sciences Northeast Regional Meeting (Kingston, Rhode Island, 1973), pp. 82-85.

2. Manoj K. Agarwal and Brian T. Ratchford, "A Comparison of Alternative Approaches to Forecasting Brand Choice," in David B. Montgomery and Dick R. Wittink, eds., Proceedings of the First ORSA/TIMS Special Interest Conference on Market Measurement and Analysis, MSI Report No. 80-13 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Marketing Science Institute), pp. 102-119.

3. Brian T. Ratchford, "Economic Approaches to the Study of Market Structure and Their Implications for Marketing Analysis," in Alan Shocker and R. Srivastava, eds., Analytic Approaches to Product and Marketing Planning: The

9 Second Conference (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Marketing Science Institute, 1983), pp. 60-78.

4. George H. Haines, Jr. and Brian T. Ratchford, "A Theory of How Intransitive People Make Decisions," in Fred Zufryden, ed., Advances and Practices of Marketing Science 1983 (Providence, RI: The Institute of Management Science, 1984), pp. 101-114.

Book Reviews Published

1. Brian T. Ratchford, "Review of Harvey Leibenstein: Beyond Economic Man: A New Foundation for Microeconomics," Journal of Consumer Policy, Vol. 2, No. 4 (1978), pp. 364-367.

Papers in Review Process

1. Dinesh Gauri, Debabrata Talukdar and Brian T. Ratchford, “Do Loss Leader Promotions Affect Store Profits? An Empirical Investigation for Grocery Industry,” Journal of Marketing Research, revision invited.

2. Xing Pan, Brian T. Ratchford and Venkatesh Shankar, “Drivers of Price Dispersion among E-Tailers during the Boom, Shakeout, Restructuring, and Mature Periods of e-Commerce,” Journal of Marketing Research, submitted.

3. Ernan Haruvy, Brian T. Ratchford and Yu Tian, “The Importance of Store Assortment to Time Constrained Consumers,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, submitted.

Grants

1. Brian T. Ratchford and George H. Haines, Jr., "Approaches to Forecasting the Demand for New Goods: Modeling the Nature of Underlying Behavior in Markets," National Science Foundation, 9/15/82 to 2/29/84, $48949.

2. K. Sridhar Moorthy, Brian T. Ratchford and Debabrata Talukdar, "Consumer Information Search Revisited: Theory and Empirical Analysis." Marketing Science Institute, February, 1993, $2200.

3. Pepsico Corporation, “Forecasting Project,” 2001-2002, $35000 to R.H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland.

TEACHING

Courses Taught

10 Marketing Management, Marketing Research, Consumer Behavior, Distribution Strategy, Channels and Retailing, Product and Promotion Management, Marketing Engineering, Microeconomics, Statistics, various Ph.D. Seminars on special topics.

Dissertations Supervised

Committee Chairman: Manoj Agarwal, "Prediction of Consumer Choice and Demand Forecasting: A Comparison of Alternative Approaches," SUNY Buffalo, 1978.

Committee Chairman: Gary Young, "An Experimental Investigation of the Effects of Power Lawn Mower Safety Standards," SUNY Buffalo, 1981.

Committee Chairman: Guy Gessner, "A Study of Advertising Regulations in the Market for Legal Services," SUNY Buffalo, 1983.

Committee Chairman: Barry Rosen, "A Field Experiment to Test the Applicability of Involvement Theory to the Segmentation of Markets for Social Goods," SUNY Buffalo, 1984.

Committee Chairman: Glenn Stoops, "An Aggregate Level Analysis of the Effects of Retailing Mix Variables on Retail Store Patronage," SUNY Buffalo, 1984.

Committee Chairman: Siva Balasubramanian, "The Processing of Verbal/ Nonverbal Content in Television Advertisements: A Theory and Its Empirical Investigation," SUNY Buffalo, 1986.

Committee Chairman: Narasimhan Srinivasan, "A Causal Model of External Search for Information for Durables: A Particular Investigation in the Case of New Automobiles," SUNY Buffalo 1987.

Committee Chairman: Pola Gupta, "A Model of Estimation of Informational Efficiency for New Automobiles," SUNY Buffalo, 1988.

Committee Chairman, Ben Liu, "An Integrated Model of Bargaining Behavior and Outcomes," SUNY Buffalo, 1991.

Committee Chairman, Chung-Koo Kim, "An Empirical Study of Marketing Competition In A Car Market: An Econometric and Time Series Approach," SUNY Buffalo, 1991.

Committee Chairman, Myung Soo Lee, "Consumer Search and Choice Patterns and New Automobile Brand and Dealer Choice," SUNY Buffalo, 1992.

Committee Chairman, Pamela Grimm, "Determinants of Brand Preference," SUNY Buffalo, April 1993.

11

Committee Chairman, Uday Kumar, "A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis of Intertemporal Brand and Quantity Choice Behavior," SUNY Buffalo, November 1993.

Committee Chairman, Arindam Banerjee, "Consumer Decision Rules Regarding Quantity to be Purchased in a Promotion Intensive Environment: Implications to Retail Pricing Policies," SUNY Buffalo, December 1994.

Committee Chairman, Rajan Sambandam, "An Examination of Theoretical Issues in Consumer Satisfaction Using Prospect Theory and Consumer Purchase Motives," SUNY Buffalo, May 1995.

Committee Chairman, Pankaj Kumar, "Dynamic Hierarchical Bayesian Models of Consideration and Choice: Issues and Estimation," SUNY Buffalo, July 1997.

Committee Chairman, Peggy Choong, "An Investigation of Information Search in the Mutual Fund Industry," SUNY Buffalo, August 1997.

Committee Chairman, Amit Bhatnagar, "An Inquiry into the Determinants of Store Assortments, Retail Formats, and Patronage Patterns," SUNY Buffalo, June 1998.

Committee Chairman, Sanjog Misra, “Compensation and Selling Effort,” SUNY Buffalo, June 1999.

Co-chair (with Venkatesh Shankar), Xing Pan, “Price Dispersion and Price Competition in Online Retail Markets,” University of Maryland, August 2003.

Co-chair (with P.K. Kannan), Lan Luo, University of Maryland, May 2005.

Co-chair (with P.K. Kannan), Nevena Koukova, University of Maryland, May 2005.

Co-chair (with Andrei Strijnev), Dongling Huang, “Three Essays in Marketing,” University of Texas at Dallas, May 2008.

Chair, Jung Seek Kim, “Consumer Search for Automobiles in the Digital Era,” University of Texas at Dallas, June 2009.

Member of Dissertation Committees: Gary Ford, John Cady, Jonathan Goodrich, A-Abu-Ayyash (Geography), Robert Allen, Michael Berkowitz, Daniel Hamblin, Naresh Malhotra, Prem Purwar, Zahid Khairullah, Mark Renne, Jagdish Agrawal, Ambuj Jain, Scott Kinzey, Janice Sargent, Sanjay Putrevu, Glen Brodowsky, Dinesh Gauri all graduates of SUNY Buffalo, 1973-2007; Kristian Muller, graduate of Helsinki School of Economics, , 1979; Rita Martenson, graduate of Goteborg University ; Bharadhwaj Sivakumaran, Debora Thompson, Shweta Oza, Ashwin Aravindhakshan, all graduates of University of Maryland,

12 2002-2007; Howard Dover, Shweta Singh, Manish Gangwar, graduates of University of Texas at Dallas

Chair of Committees of current students at University of Texas at Dallas: Chao- Ying Yu, Sonika Singh, Marina Girju.

Independent Studies and Student Projects

My records show that I have supervised approximately 130 independent study/supervised research projects since 1971.

PROFESSIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO RESEARCH

Editor, Marketing Science, 1998-2001. Associate Editor, Management Science, 1988-1997. Area Editor, Marketing Science, 1988-1997. Associate Editor, Journal of Consumer Research, 1996-1998, 2005-. Member, Editorial Board, Journal of Consumer Research, 1980-. Member, Editorial Board, Marketing Science, 1981-1997, 2002- . Member, Editorial Board, Journal of Economic Psychology, 1981-1991. Member, Editorial Board, Journal of Marketing, 1980-83, 2002-. Member, Editorial Board, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 1992-99. Member, Editorial Board, Journal of Retailing, 1992-. Member, Editorial Board, Journal of Marketing Research, 1994-. Member, Editorial Board, Journal of Consumer Policy, 1995-.2007 Member, Editorial Board, Journal of Service Research, 2001-. Member, Editorial Board, Journal of Interactive Marketing, 2005-.

Have refereed manuscripts for Review of Economics and Statistics, Transportation Research, Journal of Industrial Economics, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Journal of Consumer Affairs, International Economic Review, Rand Journal of Economics, American Economic Review, Journal of Political Economy, Quantitative Marketing and Economics.

Elected Outstanding Reviewer by Marketing Science, 1985-87. Elected Outstanding Reviewer by Journal of Consumer Research, 1990.

PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

American Economic Association American Marketing Association INFORMS Association for Consumer Research

HONORS

13

Lehmann Award for best dissertation-based article, Journal of Marketing Research, 2009 Finalist for Paul Green Award, Journal of Marketing Research, 2008. Little Award for best marketing article in an INFORMS journal in 2007. Honorable Mention, Krowe Teaching Award, University of Maryland, 2003. 3rd place in competition for best article in Journal of Retailing, 1997. William R. Davidson award for best article in Journal of Retailing, 1996. Outstanding Article in Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 1995-1997. Fellowship, European Institute for Advanced Studies in Management, Brussels,1978. Beta Gamma Sigma, University of Rochester, 1972. Earhart Foundation Fellowship, University of Rochester, 1968-69. University Fellowship, University of Rochester, 1964-66. Cum Laude graduate of Canisius College, 1964. State Regents Scholarship, 1959-64.

UNIVERSITY SERVICE

SUNY Buffalo School of Management

Undergraduate Committee, 1973-74, 1984-86. Library Committee, 1973-74. MBA Committee, 1974-75. Area Coordinator, Marketing, 1973-77. and graduate enrollments, Fall 1974, as a policy committee assignment. Ph.D. program Chairman, 1976-77, 1989-92. Internship Coordinator, Marketing 1978-87. Ph.D. Committee, 1979-81. Faculty Advisor, Student Chapter of American Marketing Association, 1979-82. President, SUNY Buffalo Chapter of Beta Gamma Sigma, 1979-80, Acting Chairman, Department of Operations Analysis, 1981-1982. Chairman, Department of Operations Analysis, 1982-1983. MBA Program Chairman, 1986-89, 1995-1999. Search Committee for Dean, 1990-1992, 1997-1998. Chairman, Personnel Committee, 1992-1994.

SUNY Buffalo University-Wide

Faculty Senate Executive Committee, 1976-77. Graduate School Executive Committee, 1976-77. Chairman, Senate Admissions Committee, 1978-80. Member, Subcommittee on Implementation of Springer Report, 1979-80. Member, University Committee on Operational Processes, 1979-81, and Chairman of this committee's Task Force on Admissions and Records, 1980. Supervised a study of perceptions and interests in MFC, which was undertaken as a student project, 1979-80.

14 Member, Faculty Senate Committee on Millard Fillmore College, 1982. Member, Faculty Senate, 1983-85. Member, Ad-hoc Committee on Statistics, 1987-89. Member, Graduate School Executive Committee, 1990-1992. Member, Advisory Board of WBFO (radio station run by the university), 1993-95. Performed major market research projects for WBFO, pro bono, 1994-95, 1999.

University of Maryland RH Smith School

Faculty Research Grants Committee1999-2005. Ph.D. Coordinator, Marketing, 1999-2005.

University of Maryland University-Wide

Elected R.H. Smith School representative to the Graduate Council.

University of Texas at Dallas

Faculty Senate 2006-2007 Ph.D. Program Director, 2007 – 2009 Ph.D. Coordinator, Marketing, 2007 - University Committee on Qualifications, 2008-2009.

15